:n 


"H 


c 


>  J^  !■         \ 


v^^-*     i 


lb 


UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


/^ 


COPYRIGHT,  1910,  BY  SIMEON  D.  FESS 

ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED 

810.6 


T 

F  4^3-7  h 


^^  /  ^  ^-^  ■  ^ac^(^'y  S 


Cf)e   atftcnsum   T^xtii 

GINN  AND  COMPANY  •  PRO- 
PRIETORS •  BOSTON  •  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 


A  comparative  study  of  the  development  of  political  theory 
and  party  organization  will  disclose  the  unique  field  occupied 
by  the  United  States  for  such  investigation.  Here,  as  in  no 
other  countr)',  the  conditions  for  such  development  exist.  A 
rich  territory  of  inexhaustible  resources,  a  population  composed 
of  the  great  middle  classes  with  an  instinct  for  self-government, 
a  spirit  of  democracy  pervading  all  ranks,  a  jealousy  for  the 
freedom  of  thought  and  speech,  an  insistence  on  the  worship 
of  God  in  accordance  with  the  individual  conscience,  render  the 
United  States  the  best  possible  field  for  such  growth. 

In  this  work  only  those  events  are  noted  which  bear  upon  the 
growth  of  political  theory  and  party  government.  These  events 
are  marshaled  so  as  to  show  a  rational  development,  with  little 
regard  to  chronological  arrangement,  but  with  special  reference 
to  logical  sequence.  Only  such  parts  of  the  party  platforms  are 
noticed  as  will  assist  in  the  better  understanding  of  this  inter- 
esting field  in  American  history. 

To  add  vitality  to  the  subject,  distinguished  leaders  are  brought 
forward,  such  as  Hamilton,  Jefferson,  Marshall,  Webster,  and 
Calhoun.  In  this  part  of  the  work  no  attempt  is  made  at  de- 
tailed biography,  the  object  being  simply  to  point  out  some  facts 
in  the  lives  of  these  statesmen  which  explain  their  position  as 
representative  men  of  their  times.  This  use  of  the  personal 
element  in  studying  American  politics  through  men  who  stand 
out  from  among  their  fellows,  will,  I  believe,  give  the  work 
added  interest  for  both  teacher  and  pupil,  and  for  the  general 
reader.  The  two  schools  of  political  theorists  are  frequently 
referred  to  as  the  Loose  Constructionists  and  the  Strict  Con- 
structionists, which   become  identical  with  the   I'Y'deralist  and 

iii 


IV 


PREFACE 


Anti-Federalist  parties.  This  same  difference  later  separates  the 
Whig  from  the  Democratic  party,  and  still  later  the  Republican 
from  the  Democratic, 

Party  government,  inevitable  to  a  certain  degree  in  a  republic, 
naturally  develops  a  narrow  partisan  spirit  on  the  part  of  the 
voters.  One  of  the  most  striking  phenomena  of  political  history 
is  the  close  division  of  the  voters  of  the  United  States,  where 
fifteen  million  men  cast  their  ballots  for  two  candidates.  In  many 
of  the  national  campaigns  a  change  of  but  a  few  thousand  votes 
would  have  reversed  the  result.  An  intelligent  review  of  our 
political  histoiy' will  reduce  this  partisan  spirit,  by  the  recog- 
nition of  the  relative  justice  of  the  claims  on  both  sides  of  the 
issue.  It  will  not  make  party  organization  less  effective,  but  it 
will  liberalize  the  citizen  by  a  broader  view.  It  enables  the 
Hamiltonian  partisan  to  recognize  the  claims  of  a  Jefferson 
follower,  and  vice  versa.  To  such  a  citizen  party  is  not  an  end, 
but  a  means  to  an  end,  and  his  fealty  is  to  country  rather  than 
party. 

The  book  is  designed  to  be  more  than  a  text.  It  should  appeal 
to  that  large  portion  of  our  citizens  who  are  not  interested  in 
school  subjects  particularly,  but  in  matters  of  general  interest 
to  a  citizen  of  the  republic.  Intelligent  participation  in  govern- 
mental affairs  depends  upon  widely  diffused  knowledge  of  our 
political  system. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  work  I  am  greatly  indebted  to  my 
wife,  Eva  Candas  Fess,  whose  patient  and  helpful  service  aided 
greatly  in  the  arrangement  of  the  material ;  and  to  Dr.  J.  Franklin 
Jameson,  of  the  Carnegie  Institution,  under  whose  scholarly 
enthusiasm  the  inspiration  for  publishing  this  work  was  gained. 

S.  D.  FESS 
Antioch  College 
Yellow  Springs,  Ohio 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  Origin-  of  Political  Parties  ix  the  United  States  i 

II.  The  National  and  Federal  Theories 24 

III.  Thomas  Jefferson,  the  Representative  of  Liberty 

in  Government 51 

IV.  Alexander  Hamilton,  the  Representative  of  Power 

IN  Government .64 

V.  John  Marshall,  the  Right  Arm  of  Nationality  .     .  83 

VI.   A  New  Alignment  of  Parties 91 

VII.   Nomination  Processes 120 

VIII.  The  Delegate  Convention  Established — 1832-1844  145 
IX.  The  Decadence  of  Political  Organization — 1844- 

1856 179 

X.  John  Caldwell  Calhoun,  the  Exponent  of  Nulli- 
fication     207 

XI.   Daniel  Webster,  the  Exponent  of  Constitutional 

Supremacy 226 

XII.  Third  Parties 241 

XIII.  Slavery  as  a  Factor  in  Politics 269 

XIV.  Stephen  A.  Douglas,   the  Advocate  of  "  Popular 

Sovereignty  " 284 

XV,  National  Nominating  Convention  of  i860  ....  298 

XVI.  Abraham  Lincoln,  the  Great  War  President      .     .  314 

XVII.  Effect  of  Civil  War  on  Political  Parties      .     .     .  337 

XVIII.   Legislative  and  Executive  Conflict 361 

XIX.  War  Amendments 3^8 

XX.   Party  Issues  since  the  Civil  War 405 

XXI.  Observations  upon  the  Election  of  President    .     .421 

XXII.  Conclusion 435 

INDEX 445 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


PAGE 


John  Adams -9 

John  Quincy  Adams 14° 

James  Buchanan 200 

John  C.  Calhoun 209 

Henry  Clay 171 

Jefferson  Davis        343 

Expansion  Map  of  the  United  States 281 

Millard  Fillmore 184 

E.  C.  Gen^t,  Autograph  of 6 

Ulysses  S.  Grant 38 1 

Alexander  Hamilton 65 

Andrew  Jackson 138 

Thomas  Jefferson S3 

Robert  E.  Lee 357 

Abraham  Lincoln 3^5 

James  Madison 13° 

John  Marshall 84 

James  Monroe i33 

Alexander  H.  Stephens 345 

Zachary  Taylor 187 

John  Tyler ^^7 

Martin  Van  Buren 156 

George  Washington 21 

Daniel  Webster 227 


VI 


POLITICAL    THEORY    AND    PARTY 

ORGANIZATION    IN    THE 

UNITED    STATES 

CHAPTER  I 
ORIGIN  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

Essentials  of  party  organization.  Party  organization  in  the 
government  of  a  country  depends  upon  the  freedom  of  thought 
and  action  among  the  people  of  that  country.  Where  this 
freedom  is  denied,  poHtical  activity  has  nothing  upon  which  to 
rest.  The  uninterrupted  communication  of  ideas,  so  essential 
to  the  formation  of  effective  political  machinery  in  the  hands 
of  the  people,  presupposes  this  freedom.  No  student  of 
pohtical  science  should  be  surprised  at  the  absence  of  party 
organization,  as  the  American  understands  it,  in  countries  like 
Russia  or  Turkey.  In  fact  its  growth  in  modern  Europe  is  a 
thing  of  quite  recent  times.  Formerly  the  governments  were 
so  jealous  of  their  prerogatives  that  any  number  of  persons, 
assembled  to  consider  the  operations  of  their  rulers,  fell  under 
the  ban  of  conspirators,  and  were  exceedingly  fortunate  if  they 
escaped  punishment.  Holland  and  England  are  exceptions 
to  this  order.  Party  organization  predicates  participation'in 
government  by  the  people.  Otherwise  it  would  be  no  more 
nor  less  than  cliques. 

Its  conception  rests  upon  difference  of  opinion  freely 
expressed.  No  matter  how  great  this  difference,  it  is  of  no 
importance  without  freedom  of  expression.  Only  where  eman- 
cipation of  opinion  is  enjoyed,  do  parties  flourish.  The  sift- 
ing of  Europe  to  secure  the  planting  of  America  came  about 
through  the  struggle  for  this  emancipation.  It  resulted  in  the 
selection  of  a  rare  people  for  the  beginning  of  a  great  civiliza- 


2  POLITICAL   THEORY   AND   PARTY 

tion.  The  restrictions  by  governmental  decrees  of  the  freedom 
of  the  intellect,  the  clipping  of  the  wings  of  the  mind  by  a  short- 
sighted pohcy,  based  upon  the  theory  that  the  most  direct 
route  to  greatness  was  by  the  suppression  of  political  and 
religious  heresy,  were  the  chief  occasions  for  the  alarming 
exodus  of  some  of  the  best  brain  and  heart  of  the  old  world  to 
the  virgin  soil  of  the  new.  It  must  be  admitted  that  some  of 
these  sufferers  in  time  forgot  the  lessons  of  the  past  and  in  a 
measure  employed  the  methods  of  their  ancient  enemies  to 
suppress  the  rights,  the  free  exercise  of  which  was  the  motive 
for  their  invasion  of  the  wilderness  of  America.  Barring  these 
cases,  the  most  distinctive  ingredient  in  this  civihzation  from 
the  beginning  of  the  constitutional  period  is  the  guarantee  of 
freedom  of  thought  and  action. 

To  guard  against  any  spasm  of  oppression  the  people  secured 
for  all  time  this  recognition  by  inserting  in  the  organic  instru- 
ment of  law  the  very  first  of  the  amendments  to  the  Federal 
Constitution,  which  declares  that  Congress  shall  have  no 
power  to  make  any  law  abridging  the  freedom  of  the  press  or 
of  speech,  or  respecting  the  establishment  of  any  rehgion,  or 
preventing  the  people  peacefully  to  assemble  to  petition  the 
government  for  the  redress  of  grievances.  In  this  sense  the 
American  pohtical  party  is  unique.  This  constitutional  pro- 
tection furnished  the  most  fertile  soil  for  party  growth.  In 
this  soil  at  one  time  or  another  almost  every  theory  that  has 
occupied  the  mind  of  a  citizen  has  been  planted,  and  has 
sprouted,  some  to  grow  and  others  to  wither  away.  Such 
multipHcity  of  suggestion,  creating  at  times  such  agitation  as 
to  be  a  source  of  great  alarm  to  European  countries,  has  been 
received  in  this  country  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  frequently 
passes  with  but  an  occasional  mention,  due  to  the  confidence 
of  the  average  citizen  that  the  fire  of  free  discussion  will  in- 
variably burn  out  the  dross  and  preserve  the  gold.  This 
people  has  unbounded  confidence  that  no  real  good  thing  can 
permanently  suft'er  in  open  debate.     In  this  forum  the  points 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED    STATES  3 

of  difference  form  the  nucleus  for  party  organization.  Around 
them  and  over  them  the  party  lines  are  drawn. 

Rational  basis  of  party  difference.  On  pohtical  matters  the 
normal  line  of  demarcation  is  that  which  separates  the  radical 
from  the  conservative  mind.  At  times  it  assumes  the  con- 
tention between  the  positive  and  the  negative  mind.  The 
dispute  is  waged  by  one  party  affirming  and  the  other  merely 
denying,  and  vice  versa.  Radicahsm  is  an  attribute  of  youth; 
conservatism,  of  old  age.  As  in  the  hfe  of  an  individual  so 
it  is  in  the  life  of  a  nation;  aggression  precedes  the  spirit  of 
dehberation.  In  every  political  division  and  in  every  munici- 
pality, the  inauguration  of  civic  and  municipal  improve- 
ments most  frequently  originates  with  the  younger  element  of 
the  community,  due  to  the  aggression  so  natural  to  youth. 
Radicahsm  is  an  essential  ingredient  of  party  organization. 
Its  existence  necessitates  the  opposition  of  the  conservative, 
hence  the  constant  presence  of  the  two. 

This  difference  revealed  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation. 
Just  preceding  and  during  the  American  Revolution  the  colo- 
nists were  divided  as  to  the  proper  measures  to  be  employed  by 
them  to  induce  the  mother  country  to  discontinue  her  policy 
of  arbitrary  government.  From  the  very  beginning  there  were 
those  like  Otis,  Henry,  and  Dr.  Warren,  who  urged  radical 
measures.  Opposed  to  such  measures  were  such  leaders  as 
Washington,  Hamilton  and  Jay,  who  favored  conservative 
means.  In  the  course  of  events  the  logic  of  the  situation 
favored  the  radicals,  and  by  the  time  the  war  was  imminent 
conservatism  was  eliminated  and  most  of  the  population  was 
aHve  with  the  spirit  of  independence.  Before  this  acute  stage 
was  reached  the  radical  wing  took  the  name  of  Whig,  and  nick- 
named the  conservative,  Tory.  In  such  atmosphere  as  a  war 
for  independence,  no  conservative  could  flourish;  hence  with 
the  coming  of  the  war  the  conservative  was  left  with  the  alter- 
native of  changing  his  politics  or  his  place  of  residence.  He 
readily  chose  the  former,  and  soon  the  Whigs  comprehended 


4  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

nearly  all  the  population  of  the  colonies,  and  for  the  time  being 
there  was  no  semblance  of  party  difference.  The  heat  of  the 
war  had  welded  the  opinions  into  one  belief. 

During  this  period  an  attempt  was  made  to  form  an  organic 
law  for  the  government  of  the  colonies  as  one  nation.  It 
resulted  in  the  famous  Articles  of  Confederation,  written  by 
John  Dickinson,  and,  by  1781,  ratified  by  all  the  thirteen 
States,  when  it  became  the  charter  of  government.  Owing  to 
the  imperative  need  of  some  form  of  government  at  this  time 
to  preserve  the  fruits  of  the  war,  and  to  the  inevitable  weak- 
ness which  must  follow  a  period  of  useless  debate  over  pohtical 
theories,  the  instrument  was  adopted  with  many  gaping  de- 
fects. To  satisfy  the  parties  who  feared  the  destruction  of  the 
autonomy  of  the  individual  States,  the  fatal  pohcy  of  State 
Sovereignty  was  declared  and  agreed  upon.  From  the  same 
motives  the  vote  on  all  measures  was  to  be  taken  by  the  States, 
each  State  to  have  but  one  vote.  To  render  this  policy  yet 
more  fatal  to  efiicient  administration,  it  was  declared  that  each 
State  should  support  its  own  delegates  to  Congress  with  power 
to  withdraw  them  at  will.  From  the  same  motives  all  taxa- 
tion was  placed  in  the  power  of  the  States.  There  was  no 
provision  for  either  an  executive  or  a  judiciary,  consequently 
there  was  no  coercive  power.  These  glaring  defects  were  due 
in  part  to  lack  of  experience  in  Federal  government,  in  part  to 
the  inability  to  do  better  than  to  compromise,  and  in  part 
to  the  anxiety  to  afford  some  governmental  protection  against 
the  threatened  anarchy  following  the  close  of  the  war.  The 
defects  of  the  plan  were  soon  apparent  and  the  agitation  for 
their  reformation  was  begun. 

Reasons  for  revising  the  system.  The  indescribable  con- 
fusion arising  out  of  the  paper-money  craze  that  swept  over  the 
colonies,  the  petty  jealousies  emanating  from  the  lack  of  uni- 
form regulation  and  interstate  commerce,  the  embarrassment 
of  the  nation  before  the  world,  arising  out  of  the  inabihty 
to  compel  the  States  to  observe  the  treaty  stipulations,  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES  5 

imbecility  of  the  general  government  to  protect  itself  from  the 
mutinying  of  a  few  bedraggled  soldiers  who  compelled  it  to  seek 
refuge  under  the  guns  of  Trenton,  and  its  impotency  in  the 
face  of  a  rebellion  like  that  of  Shays  in  Massachusetts,  when  it 
had  to  seek  the  aid  of  the  State  to  quell  it,  —  all  were  eloquent 
in  demanding  either  a  revision  of  the  old  system  or  a  substitu- 
tion of  an  entirely  new  one.  The  agreement  was  finally 
reached  to  revise  the  old  system.  The  meeting  held  for  that 
purpose  was  in  Philadelphia,  from  May  to  September,  1787, 
and  is  known  in  history  as  the  Federal  Convention,  sometimes 
called  the  Constitutional  Convention.  The  fame  of  that  con- 
vention is  great.  The  personnel  of  it  represented  a  wide  range 
of  ability.  Its  courage  was  equal  to  the  intricate  problems 
confronting  it.  It  was  free  of  the  theoretical  crank.  While 
dogmas  were  offered  and  defended  with  spirit,  the  sense  of  the 
general  needs  was  keen.  Many  plans  were  submitted  but 
no  plan  was  advocated  as  the  only  one.  The  spirit  of  give  and 
take  was  present,  which  is  revealed  by  the  numerous  com- 
promises. Scarcely  any  provision  in  the  instrument,  as  it 
came  from  the  hands  of  the  convention,  could  have  been" 
identified  with  itself  when  first  introduced.  This  ex- 
plains why  the  instrument  was  not  the  work  of  any  man, 
or  even  of  a  few  men,  but  decidedly  the  work  of  the  con- 
vention. 

The  Constitutional  Convention:  its  problem.  A  careful 
examination  of  the  activity  of  the  members  of  that  convention 
with  a  view  to  ascertaining  political  theories,  reveals  at  least 
two  types  of  mind:  namely,  the  radical,  which  desired  to  try 
the  experiment  of  government  by  the  people,  but  reserving  the 
largest  possible  participation  to  the  individual  citizen  and 
the  State,  and  the  conservative,  which  placed  more  power  in 
the  government  and  in  a  degree  restrained  the  people.  The 
advocates  of  the  first  feared  the  aggression  of  authority  in 
the  government,  if  centralized;  those  of  the  second  feared 
the  extravagance  of  liberty,  if  not  somewhat  restrained.     The 


6  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

former  sought  the  element  of  local  self-government  as  the 
chief  end;  the  latter,  the  element  of  order.  The  former  wor- 
shiped the  goddess  of  hberty,  the  latter  the  god  of  power. 
Here  is  the  line  of  cleavage.  It  separates  the  strong  central 
government  from  the  looser  State  governments.  The  former 
makes  the  national  government  sovereign  and  boldly  denies 
such  power  to  the  States.  The  latter  declares  the  govern- 
ment a  confederation  of  sovereign  States. 

Citizen  Genet  and  the  Democratic  societies.  These  differ- 
ences in  political  theory  did  not  show  in  party  organization  at 
first.  There  was  no  appearance  of  such  organization  in  the 
Federal  Convention.  All  were  united  in  the  selection  of  Wash- 
ington for  the  first  President.  The  choice  for  Vice-President 
was  made  from  personal,  rather  than  poHtical  or  party,  reasons. 

Not  until  after  Washington's  second 

/      Z^  /^  y     election  did  these  dift'erences  take  a 

O  (S)  C2^^^?^>  P'^^^^2^^  color.     The  immediate  occa- 

/y*^^  r^ sion  for  it  was  the  presence  and  activ- 

AuTOGRAPH  OF  Genet       ^^>^  ""}  ^^^   ^^^^^^^  miuistcr,   Citizen 

Genet.  The  brilHant  young  French- 
man, embodying  the  radicahsm  and  extravagance  of  the 
French  Revolution,  was  sent  by  his  government  to  secure  the 
aid  of  the  American  repubhc  in  her  fearful  struggle  with 
England.  He  came  with  the  assurance  of  a  hearty  greeting 
because  of  the  attitude  of  his  government  in  its  struggle  for 
independence.  He  affected  behef  in  his  success  to  secure  the 
much  needed  aid.  He  landed  in  a  place  remote  from  the 
capital  and  was  sumptuously  feasted  by  ardent  friends,  after 
which  he  began  his  tour  to  the  capital  of  the  country.  Presi- 
dent Washington,  recognizing  the  gravity  of  the  situation, 
after  mature  deliberation  decided  upon  a  policy  of  neutrality 
and  refused  aid  to  his  former  ally.  This  was  the  occasion  for 
an  outburst  of  indignation  rarely  observed.  France  had 
many  ardent  sympathizers  in  this  country.  At  once  the 
famous   Democratic    Society,    modeled   after   the   yet  more . 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES  7 

famous  Jacobin  Club  of  Paris,  was  organized  in  Philadelphia 

with  the  famous  Dr.  Rittenhouse  as  president,  and  Alexander 

J.  Dallas,  afterward  Secretary  of  War  under  Madison,  as  a 

member  of  the  correspondence  committee.     The  constitution 

adopted  declared  its  object  to  be: 

I.  That  the  people  have  the  exclusive  and  inherent  right  and  power  of 
making  and  aUering  forms  of  government,  and  that  for  regulating  and 
protectmg  our  social  interests,  the  repubhcan  government  is  the  most 
natural  and  beneficial  form  which  the  wisdom  of  man  has  devised. 

In  other  sections  it  set  forth  the  rights  and  duties  of  the  citi- 
zens of  a  free  government  to  exercise  freedom  in  criticizing  the 
public  officials,  if  necessary;  independence  of  judgment  in  the 
citizen,  etc. 

Growth  of  the  Jacobin  clubs.  The  first  and  mother  society 
was  organized  in  1793,  and  within  two  years  there  were  in 
existence  at  least  forty-two  such  societies,  scattered  from 
Charleston  to  Boston,  and  from  New  York  to  Pittsburg,  Cin- 
cinnati and  Louisville.  This  is  perhaps  the  earliest  attempt 
in  America  at  party  organization  for  purely  political  purposes. 
These  societies  were  responsible  for  unusual  political  activity 
in  many  communities.  They  committed  excess  in  some  re- 
spects and  thereby  lost  their  most  influential  members  who 
withdrew.  In  1794  their  activity  in  connection  with  the 
Whisky  Insurrection  in  western  Pennsylvania  called  out  a 
rebuke  from  President  Washington,  who  referred  to  them  in  a 
special  message  as  follows:  "The  arts  of  delusion  were  no 
longer  confined  to  the  efforts  of  designing  individuals.  The 
very  forbearance  to  press  was  misinterpreted  into  a  fear  of 
urging  the  execution  of  the  laws,  and  associations  of  men  began 
to  denounce  threats  against  the  officers  employed.  From  a 
beHef  that,  by  a  more  formal  concert,  their  operations  might 
be  defeated,  certain  self-created  societies  assumed  the  tone  of 
condemnation." 

The  Jacobin  club  in  Congress.  This  official  cognizance  of 
the  existence  of  jjolitical  organizations  and  the  reference  to 


8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

them  as  fomenters  of  rebellious  conduct  called  public  atten- 
tion to  them.  At  once  the  message  was  taken  up  by  both 
Houses  of  Congress.  The  Senate  with  remarkable  unanimity 
stigmatized  the  societies  as  founded  in  political  error  and  cal- 
culated, if  not  intended,  to  disorganize  the  government  itself. 
In  the  House  of  Representatives  they  fared  much  better,  due 
to  the  character  of  that  body  and  to  the  personnel  of  the  com- 
mittee to  which  the  matter  was  referred,  at  the  head  of  which 
stood  James  Madison.  The  committee  developed  the  fact 
that  such  unqualified  condemnation  would  establish  a  dan- 
gerous precedent  against  free  speech  and  the  right  of  assembly 
to  consider  grievances.  The  committee  remained  silent  on 
this  part  of  the  message.  The  matter  came  up  and  was  the 
subject  of  extended  debate,  participated  in  by  a  great  variety 
of  talent  and  discussed  with  much  spirit.  Here  was  the  occa- 
sion for  the  outlining  of  political  theory  and  the  alignment  of 
parties  upon  the  theory.  It  offered  a  natural  point  of  differ- 
ence. Here  was  the  occasion  for  those  out  of  authority  to 
arouse  the  country  to  the  dangers  against  which  it  had  been 
warned  by  them  often:  namely,  the  tyranny  of  authority  and 
the  consequent  suppression  of  free  speech.  The  pubHc  was 
reminded  of  the  inherent  tendencies  of  the  government  to 
usurp  such  authority,  and  the  habit  of  the  governed  to  permit 
it.  Reference  was  made  to  the  struggle  for  the  expressed 
recognition  of  the  inalienable  rights  of  the  people,  in  the  Con- 
stitution, and  to  its  failure,  until,  by  the  refusal  of  the  States 
to  ratify  the  work  of  the  convention  without  such  recognition, 
the  Constitution  was  so  amended  that  the  rights  were  ap- 
pended to  it  in  the  first  ten  amendments  in  the  form  of  a  Bill 
of  Rights.  The  existence  of  the  societies  in  all  parts  of  the 
country,  the  close  affiliation  of  each  to  the  other,  the 
systematic  correspondence  carried  on  between  them,  made 
unity  of  action  possible,  which  invited  concerted  opposition. 
This  procedure  was  adapted  to  the  formation  of  political 
parties. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES  9 

Jay's  treaty:  its  effect  upon  party  formation.  Immediately 
following  this  Jacobin  agitation,  came  that  upon  Jay's  treaty. 
The  character  and  personnel  of  the  opposition  were  similar 
to  that  against  the  neutrahty  poHcy.  It  showed  a  strongly 
tinged  French  coloring.  At  once  charges  were  made  that  the 
British  party  was  surrendering  the  honor  of  the  nation.  Wash- 
ington realized  the  situation.  He  for  the  first  time  called 
together  the  heads  of  the  departments;  this  was  the  first 
meeting  of  what  is  now  called  the  Cabinet.  At  this  first  meet- 
ing the  policy  of  the  government  was  decided  upon  and  the 
treaty  was  recommended.  Then  began  the  pamphlet  war. 
The  country  was  flooded  with  pamphlets  denouncing  the 
policy  of  the  President  and  not  sparing  him  personally.  It 
is  stated  on  the  authority  of  the  friends  of  John  Randolph, 
of  Roanoke,  that,  pending  the  treaty  negotiation,  he  toasted 
the  President  as  follows:  "George  Washington,  may  he  be 
damned,"  and  when  those  present  refused  to  drink  it,  he 
added,  "  if  he  signs  the  treaty," 

Methods  of  creating  public  sentiment.  Through  the  political 
pamphlet  all  the  country  was  excited.  The  opposition  to  the 
Administration  adopted  the  pohcy  of  holding  mass  meetings 
to  discuss  the  methods  to  pursue.  At  these  meetings  distin- 
guished orators  harangued  the  poHcy.  At  Charleston,  South 
Carolina,  Governor  Charles  Pinckney  made  a  powerful  address 
in  which  he  arraigned  the  British  influence  in  the  Adminis- 
tration. Meetings  of  such  character  were  held  in  almost 
every  center  of  population  in  the  country.  Even  Boston,  the 
seat  of  the  Federal  influence,  held  such  a  meeting.  Before 
the  end  of  the  second  administration  of  Washington,  party 
lines  were  distinct.  The  issues  were  not  yet  well  formulated. 
There  was  no  opposition  to  the  form  of  government.  All 
were  agreed  upon  that.  Neither  was  there  now  any  oppo- 
sition to  the  Constitution.  All  professed  deathless  loyalty 
to  it.  But  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  was  the 
needed   operation   to   permanently  crystallize   parties.   Does 


lo  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

the  Constitution  permit  such  legislation?  Is  it  constitutional? 
became  the  all  important  questions. 

Inevitably  the  party  in  power  suffers  the  charge  of  violating 
the  Constitution.  The  exercise  of  authority  falls  to  the  party 
in  power.  Party  lines  will  be  drawn  separating  those  who 
endorse  such  exercise  from  those  who  restrain  it.  The  con- 
tention will  be  between  the  positive  and  negative  forces.  The 
contention  of  the  first  is  that  such  legislation  is  for  the  general 
good,  while  that  of  the  latter  is  that  it  is  unconstitutional. 
In  a  short  time  the  Constitution  becomes  the  criterion  of  leg- 
islation between  the  ins  and  outs.  In  1796  distinct  political 
parties  were  placing  before  the  people  candidates  representing 
their  specific  principles.  Those  who  had  defended  the  policies 
of  Washington  in  his  second  administration  presented  John 
Adams  as  Washington's  successor;  while  those  who  opposed 
them  presented  Thomas  Jefferson.  Adams  was  elected  which 
was  an  endorsement  of  Washington's  administration. 

Progress  of  party  formation  under  the  elder  Adams.  Under 
Adams  the  opposition  to  the  procedure  was  fought  with 
increasing  bitterness.  This  opposition  became  so  flagrant  that 
Congress  undertook  to  restrain  it  and  enacted  the  famous 
Alien  Law,  which  enabled  the  President  to  send  out  of  the 
country  any  person  whom  he  thought  dangerous  to  the  gov- 
ernment. Another  law,  the  Sedition  Law,  subjected  any 
person  who  wrote  or  published  any  slanderous  or  libelous 
matter  against  an  officer  of  the  government  to  a  fine  or 
imprisonment  or  both.  This  legislation  was  obviously  in  vio- 
lation of  the  constitutional  guaranty  of  freedom  of  speech  and 
of  the  press.  On  this  basis  the  opposition  proceeded  in  its 
fight.  It  pronounced  the  measures  to  be  in  violation  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  government  as  declared  by  the  first 
amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution,  without  which  the 
States  would  not  have  ratified  the  instrument.  The  party  in 
power  rejoined  by  declaring  the  laws  constitutional  under  the 
''general  welfare"  clause.     It  declared    through  its  leaders 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES         ii 

that  the  object  of  government,  as  declared  in  the  enacting 
clause  of  the  Constitution,  was  to  "estabhsh  justice"  and 
"promote  the  general  welfare";  hence  such  legislation  was 
justified  by  the  sanction  of  the  Constitution.  The  opposition 
quoted,  in  refutation,  the  final  sentence  of  the  same  clause, 
which  declared  that  the  object  of  government  was  to  "secure 
the  blessings  of  hberty"  to  the  people.  When  the  party  in 
power  succeeded  in  enforcing  the  aforesaid  laws,  the  opposi- 
tion party  resorted  to  plans  to  awaken  the  public  to  an  alleged 
alarming  encroachment  upon  the  hberties  of  the  people.  The 
most  significant  of  these  was  inducing  the  States  to  pass  reso- 
lutions setting  forth  the  mutual  rights  of  the  government  and 
the  States.  Madison,  the  father  of  the  Constitution,  was 
enlisted  to  formulate  the  now  historic  document  known  in 
history  as  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  and  Jefferson,  the  well 
recognized  leader  of  the  opposition  party,  was  called  into 
requisition  to  write  the  famous  Kentucky  Resolutions.  These 
documents,  written  by  these  two  distinguished  Virginians,  were 
accepted  as  the  texts  for  the  students  of  what  from  that  day 
might  be  denominated  the  Virginia  pohtical  theory.  They 
defined  the  Hmits  of  the  general  government  and  declared 
the  prerogatives  of  the  State.  They  enlarged  upon  the  bless- 
ings of  local  self-government  and  suggested  the  dangers  of  the 
exercise  of  too  much  authority  in  the  general  government. 
They  asserted  the  right  of  the  State,  as  well  as  of  the  nation, 
to  act  as  judge  of  the  constitutionality  of  a  law.  Madison's 
subsequent  explanation  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  made  in 
the  heat  of  the  excitement  of  the  nullification  scheme  of  Cal- 
houn, was  a  denial  that  those  resolutions  declared  for  the 
principle  of  nullification. 

Federalist  vs.  Anti-Federalist.  These  two  parties  early  took 
the  names  of  "  Federalist,"  which  applied  to  the  party  in 
power  up  to  the  year  1800,  and  "Anti-Federalist,"  which 
applied  to  the  opposition.  Jefferson,  who  early  became  the 
leader  of  the  opposition,  disclaimed  the  name  of  Anti-Federal- 


12  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

ist,  which  was  thought  to  convey  the  idea  of  opposition  to  the 
Constitution.     On  the  other  hand,  he  insisted  his  party  was  the 
real  protector  of  that  instrument.     These  names  are  ambig- 
uous since  the  Federahst  was  the  advocate  of  the  national 
principle  and  should  have  been  called  Nationahst;  while  the 
Anti-Federahst  was  the  advocate  of  the  Federal  principle  and 
should  have  been  called  Federahst.     The  real  difference  was 
one  of  interpretation.     The  party  in  power  held  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  loose  construction  of  the   Constitution,   while  the 
opposition  held  to  strict  construction.     The  former  declared 
that  the  Constitution  is  an  instrument  of  both  expressed  and 
implied  powers,  while  the  latter  held  that  it  was  an  instrument 
of  expressed  powers  only.     The  latter  quoted,  in  support  of 
its  contention,   the  ninth  amendment  to  the  Constitution: 
"The  enumeration  in  the  Constitution  of  certain  rights  shah 
not  be  construed  to  deny  or  disparage  others  retained  by  the 
people."     This  they  insisted  was  sufficient  to  prove    their 
contention  that  the  powers  in  the  Federal  government  were 
delegated,   and  all  not  so  delegated  were  reserved   to   the 
people.     In  further  support  of  their  theory  they  quoted  the 
tenth  amendment:  "The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United 
States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States, 
are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  people.'' 
This,  they  declared,  was  an  ample  definition  of  the  powers  of 
the  general  government.     "  How  are  the  powers  delegated 
by  implication?"  they  asked. 

It  was  natural  that  the  party  formed  in  opposition  to  the 
aggression  of  the  party  in  power  would  take  the  position  of 
restricted  or  strict  construction.  Otherwise,  where  is  the 
protection?  This  position  would  nicely  coincide  with  the 
advocates  of  the  fullest  retention  of  local  self-government  for 
States,  which  in  the  extreme  would  assert  not  only  State 
rights  but  also  State  Sovereignty,  which  is  a  different  doctrine. 
Power,  strong  central  government,  loose  construction  of  the 
Constitution,  were  principles  of  the  Federalist  party.     Liberty, 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES  13 

local  self-government,  and  State  rights,  strict  construction 
of  the  Constitution,  were  principles  of  the  Anti-Federalist 
partv.  The  former  might  be  denominated  the  Massachusetts 
theory  of  poHtics,  the  latter,  the  Virginia  theory  of  politics. 
The  former  will  flourish  best  in  an  urban  population,  the  latter 
in  a  rural  population.  The  former  became  identified  with 
New  England,  the  latter  with  the  Southland.  The  former 
grows  best  among  a  people  of  varied  industries,  the  latter 
with  the  plantation.  While  these  principles  were  the  dividing 
lines  which  separated  the  two  parties,  and  while  these  parties 
had  recognized  leaders  or  heads,  as  Hamilton,  the  head  of  the 
Federahst,  and  Jefferson,  the  head  of  the  Anti-Federalist,  it 
is  farthest  from  the  true  position  to  assert  that  these  parties 
and  these  leaders  consistently  held  to  their  principles.  On  the 
contrary,  loose  construction  of  the  Constitution  will  rather  be 
employed  by  the  party  in  power,  and  strict  construction  by 
the  party  in  opposition.  Whatever  may  be  the  profession  of 
leaders  or  the  platform  of  parties,  when  they  come  into  power 
and  assume  the  responsibihty  of  legislation  and  administra- 
tion, they  regard  not  so  much  their  pubhshed  principles  as 
their  obligation  to  serve  the  country  and  their  privilege  to 
live  up  to  their  opportunities  to  achieve  some  real  advan- 
tage. 

The  revolution  of  1800.  By  the  year  1800  the  pendulum  of 
public  opinion  had  swung  so  far  to  the  side  of  democratic  sim- 
plicity and  the  Jeffersonian  policy,  w^hatever  that  might  have 
been,  that  a  complete  revolution  was  accomplished  by  the 
election  of  Jefferson  to  the  presidency.  Much  speculation 
was  indulged  in  the  probable  policy  of  the  new  Administration. 
Great  fears  were  affected  by  the  "  friends  of  good  govern- 
ment "  over  the  consequences  of  the  election.  Dire  results 
were  predicted  to  follow  the  reversal  of  the  same  poHcy  in- 
augurated by  Washington  and  continued  by  Adams.  It  was 
openly  alleged  that  the  narrow  poHcy  of  strict  construction 
would  lead  to  inevitable  dwarfing  of  the  nation.     Within  a 


14  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

short  time  their  fears,  had  they  been  more  than  mere  pretense, 
would  all  have  vanished. 

Conflict  between  theory  and  practise.  The  new  President 
met  his  duty  bravely,  and  when  the  emergency  growing  out  of 
the  war  between  France  and  England  arose,  and  Louisiana  was 
about  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  British,  he  sought  to  thwart 
it,  on  the  ground  that  England  on  our  west  would  endanger 
the  success  of  the  new  American  experiment  of  Repubhcan 
government.  He  at  once  counseled  the  acquisition  of  the 
territory.  He  was  informed  that  it  could  be  secured  from 
France.  Jefferson  and  his  party  were  embarrassed  by  the 
Constitution  which  was  silent  as  to  the  power  of  acquiring 
new  territory.  His  first  plan  was  to  secure  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution  permitting  the  acquisition,  but  the  time 
necessary  to  accomplish  this  would  have  defeated  the  purpose, 
and  that  plan  had  to  be  abandoned.  His  next  proposition 
was  to  proceed  to  the  purchase  and  have  it  endorsed  by  the 
people  afterward;  but  that  plan  did  not  meet  with  the  approval 
of  his  advisers.  When  there  was  no  alternative  but  to  abandon 
the  enterprise  wholly  or  throw  his  implied  powers  theory  to  the 
winds,  adopt  the  loose  construction  theory  and  buy  the  terri- 
tory, his  patriotism  was  stronger  than  his  consistency,  and  he 
proceeded  to  secure  the  Louisiana  Territory,  which  act,  as  he 
said,  "  stretched  the  Constitution  until  it  almost  cracked." 
It  might  seem  strange  that  the  party  of  strict  construction 
would  adopt  such  loose  construction  measures;  but  it  was  no 
more  strange  than  that  the  party  of  loose  construction  should 
adopt  such  strict  construction  measures  as  the  opposition 
urged  on  the  ground  that  the  Constitution  gave  no  authority 
for  the  transaction. 

The  construction  of  the  Cumberland  road  was  another  in- 
stance of  the  abandonment  of  the  party's  principle  of  strict 
construction.  The  famous  Embargo  Act  was  a  great  stretch 
of  power,  which,  under  the  rule  to  regulate  commerce,  exer- 
cised the  right  to  destroy  it. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        15 

Wisdom  of  political  inconsistency.  Tliis  complete  facing 
about  by  the  Anti-Federalists,  by  adopting  the  rule  of  Hberal 
or  loose  construction,  was  not  necessarily  a  change  of  political 
theory,  but  an  accommodation  to  the  exigencies  pertaining  to 
the  exercise  of  necessary  authority  for  effective  government. 
Neither  should  the  persistent  opposition  of  the  Federalists  to 
the  measures  of  their  opponents,  who  were  now  employing  their 
erstwhile  methods,  be  taken  as  conclusive  proof  of  the  abandon- 
ment of  loose  construction  for  a  strict  construction  policy,  but 
simply  the  desire  to  place  the  whole  responsibility  of  the  admin- 
istration of  the  government  upon  their  opponents,  who  had 
displaced  them.  It  is  quite  true  that  necessity  is  the  mother 
of  constitutional  interpretation,  as  it  is  of  invention.  No 
party  or  leader  will  permit  his  party  caprice  to  interfere  with  a 
successful  career;  hence  the  party  and  leaders  in  power,  upon 
whom  rests  the  responsibility  of  administration,  may  be 
adherents  in  theory  to  strict  construction,  but  not  in  practise; 
while  the  party  and  leaders  of  the  opposition  may  be  adherents 
in  theory  to  broad  construction,  but  not  in  practise. 

To  consistently  hold  to  theory  under  changing  circum- 
stances from  a  position  of  no  responsibility  to  one  of  great 
responsibility,  may  prove  hurtful  to  all,  while  the  abandon- 
ment for  the  time  being  of  the  theory  to  satisfy  the  changing 
conditions  will  prove  hurtful  to  nothing  save  the  theory. 
This  proposition  is  so  well  understood  that,  all  parties  and 
most  leaders  have  at  different  times  stood  on  all  sides  of  great 
issues;  the  leaders  endeavor  to  stand  with  the  party  except 
in  great  revolutions  of  sentiment  —  such  as  were  effected  by  the 
slavery  question.  When  general  disruption  of  party  organiza- 
tion takes  place,  then  party  fealty  is  weak.  This  apparent 
vacillation  does  not  prove  the  non-existence  of  the  organic 
differences  upon  which  political  theory  is  based. 

Two  forms  of  political  theory.  The  observer  of  political  his- 
tory in  the  United  States  must  conclude  that  there  are  at 
least  two  distinct  political  theories  in  operation  among  the 


1 6  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

people.  The  one  tends  toward  centralization,  the  other 
toward  decentraUzation.  The  former  seeks  to  realize  the 
strong  central  government,  the  latter  local  self-government. 
Expressed  negatively,  the  first  theory  is  fearful  of  the  extrava- 
gance of  the  people;  the  second  of  the  restraints  of  the  govern- 
ment. In  the  form  of  propositions  of  pohtical  science, 
the  first  asserts,  "That  is  the  best  form  of  government  which 
up  to  a  certain  point  governs  most;"  the  second  asserts, 
"That  is  the  best  form  of  government  which  up  to  a  certain 
point  governs  least."  These  theories  of  government  ante- 
dated the  Roman  Empire. 

These  forms  observed  in  Greece,  Rome,  and  England.  In 
the  government  of  Greece  the  pendulum  swung  to  the  side  of 
self-government  in  free  cities,  thus  denying  the  needed  central 
authority  over  them  in  matters  of  general  concern.  The  gov- 
ernment became  loose  in  its  parts  and  was  wrecked  upon  the 
rocks  of  anarchy.  Rome  employed  a  different  policy  which 
swung  the  pendulum  in  the  opposite  extreme.  In  the  Roman 
regime  there  was  recognition  of  the  principle  of  local  self- 
government,  but  there  was  no  affiUation  between  these  local 
governments  and  the  imperial  government;  hence  the  ten- 
dency toward  disregard  for  the  local  need  and  rights,  which 
led  to  usurpation  of  power  and  the  ultimate  rise  and  fall  of 
the  monarchy.  England,  after  the  struggle  of  the  centuries 
for  the  recognition  of  the  principle  of  self-government,  took 
the  longest  step  toward  the  solution  of  the  problem.  For 
centuries  the  power  in  that  country  was  in  the  Crown.  Then, 
for  a  less  duration,  it  was  in  the  Lords.  In  modern  England 
the  power  is  in  the  people  represented  in  the  Commons. 

The  extension  of  this  principle  in  England  has  not  been 
fatal  to  the  needed  authority  of  the  general  government,  which 
is  really  under  the  power  of  the  people  through  their  represent- 
atives in  the  Commons.  It  will  be  recalled  that  England's 
fatal  experiment  with  her  American  colonies  was  the  tendency 
toward  arbitrary  government,  which  denied  the  principle  of 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES         17 

local  self-government.  In  1775  Burke,  whom  Dr.  Johnson 
called  the  "greatest  man  in  England,"  made  a  speech  before 
Parliament  in  which  he  urged  the  granting  of  local  self-go\'ern- 
ment  to  the  American  colonies.  He  ably  defended  the  prin- 
ciple and,  as  a  precedent,  he  cited  the  case  of  Ireland,  of  which 
he  said,  "You  changed  the  people;  you  altered  the  religion; 
but  you  never  touched  the  form  or  the  vital  substance  of  free 
government  in  that  kingdom.  You  deposed  kings;  you 
restored  them;  you  altered  the  succession  to  theirs,  as  well 
as  to  your  own  Crown;  but  you  never  altered  their  constitu- 
tion, the  principle  of  which  was  respected  by  usurpation, 
restored  with  the  restoration  of  monarchy,  and  established,  I 
trust,  forever,  by  the  glorious  Revolution." 

Burke  comprehended  the  problem  as  perhaps  no  man  in  his 
day  and  country  did,  for  in  his  powerful  presentation  of  the 
right  and  value  of  the  exercise  of  the  principle  of  local  self- 
government,  he  was  ever  mindful  of  the  necessity  of  the  gen- 
eral prerogative.  His  estimate  of  the  necessity  of  a  strong 
central  authority,  exercising  without  restraint  its  constitu- 
tional prerogative,  did  not  blind  him  to  the  other  vital  element 
in  government:  namely,  the  fullest  retention  and  freest  exer- 
cise of  the  principle  of  local  self-government. 

A  new  field  for  political  theory.  The  American  Revolution, 
which  secured  not  only  the  recognition  of  the  principle  in  ques- 
tion, but  entire  independence  for  the  colonies,  shifted  the 
struggle  of  the  two  political  theories  from  the  old  to  the  new 
world.  The  situation  of  the  colonies,  the  partial  recognition 
of  local  government,  the  character  of  the  colonist,  the  wide 
separation  and  great  variety  of  interests  —  all  conspired  to 
educate  the  people  in  an  appreciation  of  the  value  of  local 
government.  The  Revolution  and  especially  the  chain  of 
causes  leading  to  it  were  the  occasion  for  a  conflict  of  theories. 
The  self-governing  impulse  had  flowed  out  into  the  great  char- 
ter of  human  liberties,  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and 
declared   that   governments  were  instituted   among   men  to 


1 8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

secure  the  rights  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness 
through  the  consent  of  the  governed. 

Effect  of  the  Revolution.  The  Revolution  left  the  colonies 
in  undisputed  possession  of  the  right  of  self-government.  It 
detached  the  last  vestige  of  monarchical  government  and  left 
the  colonies  to  create  some  substitute.  The  plan  embodied 
in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  was  faulty  on  the  side  of  too 
much  local  government.  The  Federal  Convention  was  called 
to  remedy  this  defect.  Perhaps  the  most  important  question 
discussed  in  the  Convention  was  that  which  pertained  to  the 
prerogative  of  the  central  authority  and  the  retention  of  local 
liberty.  The  one  school  of  thinkers  contended  for  coercive 
power  in  the  head;  the  other  jealously  guarded  the  rights  of 
the  several  parts.  The  former  insisted  that  the  experience 
of  the  past  decade  proved  the  imbecihty  of  government  with- 
out such  central  authority,  while  the  latter  pointed  to  the 
regime  under  George  III,  and  insisted  that  it  proved  that  all 
our  woes  dated  from  the  exercise  of  the  very  powers  contended 
for  by  the  friends  of  centralization.  This  contention  separated 
the  people  into  two  factions:  the  one  making  the  nation  the 
chief  repository  of  the  strength  and  welfare  of  the  people,  the 
other  making  the  States  that  repository.  Thus  was  created 
party  division  over  the  old  question  which  engaged  the  best 
thought  of  the  race. 

Liberty  and  authority  in  conflict  in  the  Federal  Convention. 
The  constructive  element  in  the  Federal  Convention  declared 
the  purpose  of  government  to  be  the  establishment  of  justice, 
domestic  tranquillity,  common  defense  and  the  general  welfare. 
The  decentralizing  element  declared  that  the  end  of  govern- 
ment was  the  security  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness.  To  secure  the  objects  as  stated  by  the  former, 
necessary  authority  was  delegated  to  the  national  government 
and  certain  privileges  were  denied  to  the  States,  hence  the 
various  prohibitions  to  the  States,  as,  for  example:  No  State 
can  enter  into  any  treaty  or  alliance  with  a  foreign  power.     On 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED    STATES        19 

the  other  hand,  for  the  protection  of  the  State  and  individual 
against  any  possible  national  aggression,  the  national  powers 
are  defined  and  certain  limitations  laid,  as,  for  example:  The 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended  except  in  speci- 
fied cases,  as  in  times  of  invasion  or  insurrection. 

Hamilton  vs.  Jefferson.  Perhaps  the  leading  exponent  of 
the  central  theory  of  government  was  Alexander  Hamilton,  of 
New  York,  which  theory  is  denominated  "  Hamiltonian." 
With  equal  propriety  it  is  alleged  that  the  leading  exponent  of 
the  looser  theory  was  Thomas  Jefferson,  of  Virginia,  and  it  is 
called  by  some  writers  the  Jeffersonian  theory.  Not  that  all 
the  Northern  section  of  the  country  endorsed  the  ideas  of 
Hamilton  —  far  from  it;  nor  that  all  the  Southern  section  of 
the  country  endorsed  the  views  of  Jefferson.  Such  men  as 
Gallatin  and  Dallas  of  Pennsylvania,  the  Clintons  and  Burr  of 
New  York,  Samuel  Adams  and  Gerry  of  Massachusetts  —  all 
were  strenuous  advocates  in  their  respective  States  of  the 
Jeffersonian  theory  as  against  the  Hamiltonian.  On  the  other 
hand,  Thomas  and  C.  C.  Pinckney  of  South  CaroHna,  Iredell 
of  North  Carohna,  Marshall  and  Henry  Lee  of  Virginia,  Smith 
of  Maryland  and  Bayard  of  Delaware  were  among  the  ablest 
champions  of  the  Hamiltonian  theory  as  against  the  Jeffer- 
sonian. However,  the  logic  of  the  situation  made  the  Southern 
section  the  domicile  of  the  Virginia  theory,  and  the  Northern, 
of  the  Massachusetts  theory. 

Conditions  which  favored  sectional  differences.  Many  con- 
ditions enter  into  the  formation  of  such  results.  The  manner 
of  settlement  of  the  two  sections  had  something  to  do  with  the 
results.  In  Massachusetts  the  various  settlements  were  made 
in  communities  or  in  large  congregations.  Usually  each  settle- 
ment was  accompanied  by  the  pastor  who  was  the  chief  person 
of  the  settlement.  His  word  was  given  due  obedience.  The 
settlers  lived  a  community  life.  The  town  was  laid  out  with 
the  town  hall  or  court-house  on  the  square;  near  by  stood  the 
church  building  which  was  frequently  used  for  school  purposes. 


20  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Each  person  was  allotted  a  certain  amount  of  land.  He  had 
his  home  lot,  his  arable  plot  and  his  pasture  land.  The  waste 
land  and  the  woodland  were  usually  held  in  common.  Their 
government  approached  the  charter  form.  If  any  person 
desired  to  settle  in  this  community  he  was  required  to  secure 
permission  of  the  community.  In  case  of  differences,  which 
were  frequent,  new  settlements  were  made.  The  settlement 
of  Hartford  was  directed  by  Hooker,  who  gave  to  his  people  a 
written  constitution,  which  proves  to  be  the  first  of  its  kind 
in  history,  Davenport  settled  New  Haven  because  of  some 
religious  disagreement  between  him  and  the  authorities  in 
Massachusetts  Bay.  The  founding  of  Rhode  Island  by  Roger 
Williams  resulted  from  similar  reasons.  These  disagreements 
multiplied  the  number  of  settlements  which  soon  spread  over 
much  of  what  is  now  New  England.  This  fact,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  presence  of  warlike  tribes  of  Indians, 
explains  the  early  efforts  to  confederate  the  different  com- 
munities. 

Form  in  the  North.  For  the  sake  of  mutual  protection  the 
near-by  congregations  adopted  a  plan  of  union.  Several  of 
these  religious  communities  or  units  united  to  form  the  town- 
ship. This  township  became  the  unit  of  the  county,  which 
was  the  poHtical  division  immediately  above  the  township. 
The  county  was  the  unit  of  the  State  or  colony  which  was  made 
up  of  the  various  counties.  Thus  the  principle  of  local  self- 
government  was  recognized  in  the  county.  As  before  stated, 
the  church  community  was  subordinate  in  a  degree  to  the 
township,  the  township  to  the  county,  the  county  to  the  State 
and  the  State  to  the  nation.  Such  tutelage  developed  the 
principle  of  State  subordination  in  matters  pertaining  to  the 
whole. 

Form  in  the  South.  These  conditions  did  not  obtain  in  the 
Southern  section.  The  character  of  the  settlements  and  the 
purpose  of  the  settlers  preclude  the  church  congregations  and 
the  township.     The  smallest  unit  was  the  county,  which  was 


.^/'  - 


yf- 


George  Washington 


21 


2  2  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

no  larger  in  area  than  the  county  in  the  North.  The  character 
of  the  soil  which  produced  tobacco,  rice  and  cotton  favored 
the  large  plantation.  The  character  of  the  climate  favored 
slave  labor.  These  two  facts  —  the  plantation  and  the  pres- 
ence of  the  slave  —  separated  the  governed  from  the  govern- 
ing and  developed  a  form  of  aristocracy.  The  plantation 
became  a  law  unto  itself  and  was  the  chief  object  of  political 
fealty.  The  necessity  for  the  New  England  type  of  poHtical 
organization  did  not  appear  in  the  rice  and  cotton  sections. 
There  was  not  the  impulse  for  united  action.  Each  State  was 
sovereign  in  character  and  administration.  Under  these  con- 
ditions the  doctrine  of  State  Sovereignty  normally  developed. 
The  need  of  a  strong  central  government  did  not  appear,  and 
if  it  had  appeared  the  prevailing  conditions  did  not  suggest  the 
character  needed.  Here  then  we  have  a  rational  basis  for  the 
growth  of  the  two  theories  of  politics. 

Washington's  influence.  Perhaps  the  greatest  single  per- 
formance of  Washington,  as  the  first  President,  was  his  inaugu- 
ration of  the  two  theories  of  government,  when  he  called  to 
his  assistance  their  respective  heads,  Hamilton  and  Jeffer- 
son. By  the  aid  of  these  two  men  he  was  able  to  establish  the 
new  republic  upon  the  two  pillars:  namely,  a  strong  central 
government  with  the  prerogative  extending  to  all  matters  of 
general  concern  and  with  sufficient  coercive  power  to  insure 
effective  administration  of  the  laws;  and  a  full  retention  of 
local  self-government  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  locality, 
thus  insuring  the  protection  of  the  autonomy  of  the  State  and 
the  liberty  of  the  individual.  There  is  now  little  doubt  that 
the  theory  of  Jefferson,  unrestrained,  would  have  given  too 
much  liberty  to  the  State  and  too  Uttle  power  to  the  nation, 
and  with  equal  fairness  it  may  be  said  that  the  theory  of 
Hamilton,  unrestrained,  would  have  given  too  much  power  to 
the  nation  and  not  enough  liberty  to  the  State.  The  credit 
is  really  due  to  Washington,  who,  whether  conscious  of  the 
act  or  not,  combined  these  two  theories,  and  in  so  doing  solved 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        23 

the  greatest  problem  in  the  history  of  government:  namely, 
the  reconcihation  of  the  two  seemingly  contradictory  elements, 
authority  and  liberty,  by  guaranteeing  energy  in  the  nation 
and  at  the  same  time  reserving  freedom  in  the  local  govern- 
ment of  the  several  States. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  NATIONAL   AND    FEDERAL  THEORIES 

General  vs.  State  government.  Frequent  collisions  would 
be  inevitable  in  a  government  composed  of  thirteen  colonies, 
sovereign  in  some  matters,  subordinate  in  others,  with  unde- 
fined relations  in  many  others.  The  first  instance  of  such 
colHsion  was  in  the  case  of  Rhode  Island,  when  that  State  de- 
clined to  send  delegates  to  the  Federal  Convention,  and  by 
1789  had  declined  for  the  sixth  time  to  call  a  convention  to  act 
upon  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution.  And  not  until  the 
general  government  acting  under  the  authority  of  the  Consti- 
tution proceeded  to  treat  Rhode  Island  as  a  foreign  govern- 
ment was  the  State  induced  to  reconsider  its  former  position. 
It  ratified  the  Constitution  by  the  close  vote  of  thirty-four  to 
thirty-two.  The  same  Convention  sent  this  significant  memo- 
rial to  Congress : 

The  people  of  this  State  from  its  first  settlement  have  been  accus- 
tomed and  strongly  attached  to  a  democratical  form  of  government. 
They  have  read  in  the  Constitution  an  approach  toward  that  form  of 
government  from  which  we  have  lately  dissolved  our  connection  at  so 
much  hazard  of  expense  of  life  and  treasure.  Can  it  seem  strange  then 
that,  with  these  impressions,  they  should  wait  and  see  the  proposed  sys- 
tem organized  and  in  operation,  .  .  .  before  they  would  adopt  it  as 
a  constitution  of  government  for  themselves  and  their  posterity. 

Opposition  voiced  by  Patrick  Henry.  The  greatest  con- 
tests were  in  New  York  and  Virginia.     In  the  latter  State  the 

opposition  was  led  by  Patrick  Henry  who  clamored  to  know 

24 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        25 

by  what  authority  the  Convention  employed  the  language 
"  We,  the  People,"  mstead  of  "  We,  the  States."  "  The  fate 
of  America,"  he  declared,  "  may  depend  upon  this  question. 
Have  they  said,  '  We,  the  States?  If  they  had,  this  would  be 
a  confederation;  it  is  otherwise  a  most  clearly  consoHdated 
government."  He  declared  it  to  be  a  revolution  as  radical 
as  that  which  separated  us  from  England.  It  was  the  rehn- 
quishment  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  State.  When  it  was 
observed  by  the  friends  of  the  Constitution  that  eight  States 
had  already  ratified  it,  he  eloquently  proclaimed:  "  If  twelve 
States  and  a  half  adopted  it,  I  would  with  manly  firmness,  and 
in  spite  of  an  erring  world,  reject  it."  ''  You  are  not  to  in- 
quire," he  declared,  "  how  you  are  to  become  a  great  and 
powerful  people,  but  how  your  hberties  can  be  secured.  .  .  . 
Liberty,  the  greatest  of  all  earthly  blessings,  give  us  that 
precious  jewel,  and  you  may  take  everything  else."  This  was 
the  character  of  the  oppositon  argument,  only  less  eloquent. 
The  Federalist.  In  New  York  the  opposition  was  forceful 
and  called  out  the  famous  articles  now  known  as  the  FederaHst, 
written  principally  by  Hamilton  and  Madison,  and  in  a  lesser 
degree  by  Jay.  The  constructive  abihty  exempHfied  in  these 
papers  places  their  authors  on  the  level  with  the  greatest  minds 
in  the  history  of  ancient  or  modern  civihzation.  At  this  time 
a  majority  of  the  colonists  were  adherent  to  the  State  Sover- 
eignty theory  or  at  least  to  the  distinctive  local  self-govern- 
ment theory.  In  every  State  there  was  strong  opposition  to 
the  ratification  of  the  Constitution,  which  sprang  from  a  deep- 
laid  fear  of  centrahzation.  But  the  imperative  necessity  for 
governmental  protection  against  a  condition  of  anarchy  appar- 
ent in  many  quarters,  together  with  the  wishes  of  General 
Washington  and  other  members  of  the  Federal  Convention, 
that  the  several  States  proceed  to  recommend  in  the  form  of 
amendments  such  changes  as  they  deemed  necessary,  partially 
reduced  this  opposition,  though  it  could  not  entirely  prevent 
the  existence  of  local  faction. 


26  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

The  Bill  of  Rights  as  adopted.  The  Federal  Convention 
omitted  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  when  its  report  reached  the 
Continental  Congress,  an  attempt  was  made  by  Richard 
Henry  Lee,  of  Virginia,  to  have  such  provision  as  a  Bill  of 
Rights  inserted  in  the  form  of  an  amendment.  It  was  decided 
to  recommend  to  the  States  their  ratification  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, with  suggestions  in  the  form  of  amendments,  covering 
the  points  contended  for,  in  a  Bill  of  Rights.  This  plan  was 
pursued.  Of  the  numerous  amendments  suggested  by  the 
various  States,  twelve  were  passed  by  Congress  and  submitted 
to  the  States  for  ratification.  Ten  of  the  twelve  received  the 
necessary  votes  of  three-fourths  of  the  States,  and  thus  became 
a  part  of  the  organic  law  of  the  land.  Thus  the  Hamiltonian 
theory  was  adopted  by  omitting  from  the  body  of  the  Consti- 
tution any  provision  for  a  Bill  of  Rights,  and  the  Jeffersonian 
theory  was  secured  by  the  adoption  of  such  a  Bill  of  Rights  to 
be  appended  to  the  instrument  in  the  form  of  amendments, 
and  with  the  force  of  the  instrument  itself.  The  first  nine  of 
the  amendments  pertain  to  the  rights  of  the  people: 

1.  Freedom  of  conscience,  of  speech,  of  the  press,  of  assembly  and  of 
petition. 

2.  Freedom  to  bear  arms. 

3 .  Freedom  of  the  home  from  sheltering  soldiers  except  in  times  of  war, 
and  then  only  by  due  process  of  law. 

4.  Freedom  from  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures. 

5.  The  rights  of  a  person  charged  with  crime,  to  an  indictment,  etc. 

6.  The  rights  of  the  criminal  to  trial  by  jury,  etc. 

7.  Right  to  jury  trial  in  civil  cases  of  certain  character. 

8.  Freedom  from  excessive  bail  or  fine,  and  from  cruel  punishment, 

9.  Rights  not  delegated  to  the  government,  retained  by  the  people. 
The  tenth  amendment  provides  against  usurpation  of  power  by  the  gen- 
eral government. 

Federal  against  national  theory  of  government.  The  cur- 
rent of  events  accentuated  these  distinctions.  Ere  the 
close  of  Washington's  second  administration  Hamilton  and 
Jefferson,    the    two   great    exponents    of    the    two    theories, 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES       27 

were  fairly  recognized  as  the  respective  leaders  of  two  parties, 
whose  difference  was  gauged  by  the  difference  of  constitutional 
interpretation,  which  furnished  the  line  of  demarcation  be- 
tween the  adherents  of  the  two.  The  one  party  sought  the 
recognition  of  privilege  in  the  State  and  people,  while  the  other 
sought  the  necessary  authority  to  secure  law  and  order. 

The  experience  of  the  colonies  under  the  British  government 
induced  the  State  to  look  with  jealous  eye  upon  the  exercise 
of  every  power  of  the  superior  authority  as  a  restraint  of  State 
Sovereignty,  and  to  that  degree  dangerous.  It  was  generally 
believed  by  the  members  of  the  Federal  Convention  that  the 
State  was  exempted  from  being  compelled  to  answer  as  a  de- 
fendant in  any  case  in  law  or  equity,  arising  from  a  suit  com- 
menced by  a  citizen  of  any  State  or  of  a  foreign  State.  This 
opinion  was  shared  by  John  Marshall,  of  Virginia,  afterward 
chief  justice  of  the  Federal  Supreme  Court. 

Conflict  between  the  government  and  the  State.  In  1792  the 
State  of  Georgia  was  thrown  into  a  spasm  by  the  appeal  from 
its  own  courts  to  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  which  assumed 
jurisdiction  and  proceeded  to  apply  the  law.  However,  the 
.court  granted  time  to  the  State  to  reconsider  its  action.  The 
Georgia  House  of  Representatives  declared  such  assumption 
of  authority  would  "  effectually  destroy  the  retained  sover- 
eignty of  the  State,  and  would  actually  tend  in  its  operation  to 
annihilate  the  very  shadow  of  State  government,  and  would 
render  them  but  tributary  corporations  to  the  government  of 
the  United  States."  It  further  declared  that  the  State  would 
not  be  bound  by  the  decision  of  the  court,  but  would 
regard  the  decision  as  unconstitutional.  It  recommended  an 
amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  providing  against 
further  interference  by  the  Federal  Supreme  Court. 

In  1793  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Georgia  passed  an 
act  declaratory  of  State  Sovereignty,  and  resolved  that  any 
person  attempting  to  levy  on  property  of  the  State  to  satisfy 
the  claim  of  one  Chisholm,  under  the  authority  of  the  United 


28  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

States  in  pursuance  of  the  Supreme  Court  decision,  "  is  hereby 
declared  to  be  guilty  of  felony,  and  shall  suffer  death,  without 
the  benefit  of  clergy,  by  being  hanged."  Here  for  the  first 
time  was  announced  the  principle  that  the  primary  allegiance 
of  the  citizen  is  to  the  State,  not  to  the  nation;  and  that  other 
principle  equally  far  reaching,  that  the  State  is  judge  of  the 
constitutionahty  of  its  own  acts.  These  are  the  bases  upon 
which  the  theory  of  State  Sovereignty  is  reared. 

The  New  Hampshire  case.  A  case  not  different  in  principle 
came  up  from  the  State  court  of  New  Hampshire.  Here  the 
case  had  been  adjudicated  in  the  colonial  courts  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, and,  after  the  colony  became  a  State  under  the  Federal 
Constitution,  was  brought  into  the  Federal  courts,  first  in  the 
district  of  New  Hampshire  and  then  into  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  which  confirmed  the  lower  court  de- 
cision, thereby  taking  jurisdiction  of  the  case.  Against  this 
assumption  of  power  of  the  Federal  government  over  the  State 
government.  New  Hampshire  filed  two  remonstrances,  deny- 
ing authority  of  the  Federal  courts  to  exercise  jurisdiction  in 
such  cases. 

The  conflict  intensified  under  Adams.  The  alarm  created  in 
various  minds  of  the  country  by  the  advanced  position  taken 
by  the  Federal  judiciary  in  assuming  jurisdiction  in  cases 
decided  in  the  highest  courts  of  the  States,  was  augmented  by 
the  pohcy  of  the  national  Administration  under  the  elder 
Adams.  The  notorious  Alien  and  Sedition  enactments  by 
Congress  were  the  occasion  for  that  alarm.  In  June,  1798,  the 
time  required  for  the  naturalization  of  an  ahen  was  made 
fourteen  years,  and  five  years  after  declaring  his  intention. 
Seven  days  later  the  first  Alien  Law  was  enacted.  It  provided 
that  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  be  empowered  to 
"order  all  such  ahens  as  he  shall  judge  dangerous  to  the  peace 
and  safety  of  the  United  States,  or  shall  have  reasonable 
grounds  to  suspect  are  concerned  in  any  treasonable  or  secret 
machinations  against  the  government  of  the  United  States,  to 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES         29 


depart  out  of  the  territory,"  etc.     Further  provisions  were 
made  to  enable  the  President  effectually  to  execute  the  law. 

In  the  following  July  the  AHen  Enemy  Act  was  passed, 
giving  the  President  ample  power  to  deal  with  citizens  of  a 
foreign  country  residing  within  the  United  States,  at  the  time 
of  a  war  with  such  country. 

On  the  14th  of  July  the  famous  Sedition  Law  was  enacted. 
It  provided  against 
any  conspiracy  to 
oppose  the  enforce- 
ment of  any  law 
of  the  nation.  It 
further  made  it  a 
punishable  offense 
to  "  write,  print, 
utter  or  pubHsh 
any  false,  scanda- 
lous, or  malicious 
writings  against 
the  government, 
either  House  of 
Congress,     or    the 

President."      Such 

„  ,  John  Adams 

offense   was   made 

punishable  by  imprisonment  not  to  exceed  two  years  and  a 
fine  not  to  exceed  two  thousand  dollars. 

The  difference  a  constitutional  one.  These  laws  were  op- 
posed b}'  the  Jeffersonian  followers  as  open  violation  of  the 
spirit,  if  not  the  letter,  of  the  Constitution.  They  insisted  that 
the  Alien  Act  was  in  violation  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  which  guar- 
anteed freedom  of  the  person  and  trial  by  jury.  They  declared 
that  the  Sedition  Law  nullified  the  most  sacred  right  of  free 
speech,  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution,  which  declares  in  its 
first  article  of  amendments  that  Congress  shall  have  no  power  to 
make  any  law  to  abridge  the  freedom  of  the  press  or  of  speech. 


30  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

They  reminded  the  Administration  that  the  insertion  of  such 
a  guaranty  was  the  condition  upon  which  the  Constitution  was 
ratified  by  many  States  and  without  it  the  instrument  could 
not  have  been  ratified.  They  asserted  that  such  unwarranted 
stretch  of  authority  proved  that  all  their  fears  entertained  in 
the  past  were  justified  by  the  events  of  a  single  administration, 
that  the  inherent  tendency  of  power  to  abuse  was  so  strong  that 
within  the  briefest  period  it  had  extended  itself  to  the  hurt  of 
both  the  citizen  and  the  State  in  open  violation  of  the  clearest 
principle  of  the  Constitution  and  in  the  face  of  the  loudest 
protests  of  the  friends  of  liberty  and  good  government.  It 
should  be  remembered  that  Hamilton  did  not  approve  of  these 
measures  of  the  Administration. 

Origin  of  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolutions.  These 
laws  were  the  occasion  for  the  action  of  the  legislatures  of 
Kentucky  and  Virginia,  in  adopting  the  famous  resolutions 
which  bear  the  names  of  the  States  adopting  them.  In  Novem- 
ber following  July  when  the  obnoxious  laws  were  passed,  the 
Kentucky  legislature  passed  a  series  of  resolutions,  mainly 
written  by  Thomas  Jefferson,  setting  forth  the  relations  be- 
tween the  State,  as  a  State,  and  the  Federal  government. 
The  eighth  section  of  the  Jefferson  draft  is  important  in  reveal- 
ing his  theory.  After  a  clear  and  concise  statement  of  the 
relation  existing  between  the  two  authorities,  he  declares 
"This  commonwealth  is  determined,  as  it  doubts  not  its  co- 
States  are,  to  submit  to  undelegated,  and  consequently  to  un- 
limited power,  in  no  man  nor  body  of  men  on  earth."  He 
further  declares,  "  When  powers  are  assumed  which  have  not 
been  delegated,  a  nuUification  of  the  act  is  the  right  remedy . . . 
That  every  State  has  the  right  in  cases  not  within  the  compact 
to  nullify  of  their  own  authority  all  assumption  of  power  by 
others  within  their  Hmits.  That  without  this  right  they  would 
be  under  the  dominion,  absolute  and  unlimited,  of  whatsoever 
might  exercise  this  right  of  judgment  for  them."  This 
advanced  position   taken  by  Jefferson  created  wide  excite- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES       31 

ment,  and  bitter  criticism  from  the  friends  of  the  Adminis- 
tration. 

Substance  of  the  Virginia  resolutions.  Within  a  month 
the  Virginia  legislature  put  itself  on  record  on  the  same  ques- 
tion by  adopting  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  written  by  James 
Madison.  The  author  of  these  resolutions  was  rightly  called 
the  "father  of  the  Constitution";  hence  the  special  interest 
attaching  to  them  on  so  important  a  question.  Madison  de- 
clared a  firm  intention  to  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Virginia  against 
every  aggression.  He  pledged  all  the  powers  of  the  assembly 
of  the  State  to  maintain  the  Union  of  the  States.  He  declared 
that  the  government  is  the  result  of  a  compact,  and  its  powers 
are  Hmited  by  the  grants  enumerated  in  the  compact.  He 
deplored  the  tendency  in  the  Administration  to  overstep  its 
authority,  and  protested  against  the  "alarming  infractions  of 
the  Constitution"  in  the  cases  of  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws. 
He  justified  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions  in  view  of  the 
State's  position  in  requiring  the  adoption  of  a  Bill  of  Rights 
as  a  condition  for  ratification  of  the  Federal  Constitution. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Madison  did  not  take  the  advanced 
position  of  Jefferson.  There  is  no  inference  that  the  primary 
allegiance  is  to  the  State,  but  rather  to  the  nation.  Nulhfica- 
tion  as  a  remedy  has  no  place  in  his  mind.  State  Sovereignty 
is  not  claimed.  However,  the  right  of  the  State  to  sit  in 
judgment  upon  the  constitutionality  of  a  Federal  law  is  clearly 
declared.  The  State's  remedy  for  an  unconstitutional  law 
was  confined  to  "necessary  and  proper  measures  "  to  maintain 
the  authority,  right  and  liberty  of  the  State  and  the  people. 

These  resolutions  were  transmitted  through  the  governors 
to  the  several  States  of  the  Union,  with  the  request  to  consider 
the  rcsokitions  in  the  light  of  current  tendencies. 

Attitude  of  the  States  toward  them.  Delaware  was  the 
first  to  reply  to  the  Virginia  Resolutions.  She  considered 
them  as  "very  unjustifiable    interference  with  the  general 


32  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

government  and  constituted  authorities  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  dangerous  tendency  and  not  a  lit  subject  for  further 
consideration  of  the  general  assembly." 

Rhode  Island  was  the  next  to  reply,  declaring  that  the  Con- 
stitution vests  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  the 
authority  to  declare  whether  a  law  is  unconstitutional,  and 
further  that  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws  were  "promotive  of 
the  general  welfare  of  the  United  States." 

Massachusetts  repHed  in  an  elaborate  document  denying 
the  authority  of  any  State  to  call  into  question  the  constitution- 
ahty  of  a  Federal  law,  and  pronounced  approval  of  the  Alien 
and  Sedition  Laws. 

Pennsylvania  declared  it  her  belief  that  such  resolutions 
are  "calculated  to  excite  unwarrantable  discontent,  and  to 
destroy  the  very  existence  of  our  government,  and  they  ought 
to  be,  and  hereby  are  rejected." 

Rephes  were  sent  to  Virginia  by  New  York,  Connecticut, 
New  Hampshire  and  Vermont,  all  refusing  Virginia's  request 
to  unite  against  the  government's  policy. 

Replies  of  the  same  tenor  were  generally  sent  to  Kentucky. 
It  is  quite  singular  that  all  the  States  replying  were  from  the 
Northern  section  of  the  country,  except  Maryland.  The 
States  of  South  Carolina,  North  Carolina  and  Georgia  took 
no  action.  These  facts  tend  not  only  to  identify  Jefferson 
with  the  State  Sovereignty  theory,  but  also  to  sectionalize 
that  theory. 

The  Jeffersonian  theory  identical  with  the  Southern  theory. 
The  growth  of  the  Virginia  theory  in  the  Southern  country  can 
be  accounted  for  on  a  rational  basis,  while  the  growth  of  the 
Massachusetts  theory  in  the  Northern  country  can  as  easily 
and  as  rationally  be  explained.  The  facts  show,  nevertheless, 
that  not  infrequently  the  ruhng  party  in  the  North  has  adopted 
the  Virginia  theory.  This,  however,  has  been  at  times  of 
intense  party  feehng,  and  under  protest  that  their  Federalist 
views  had  not  been  abandoned. 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        33 

The  first  symptoms  of  party  machinery.  Between  1801  and 
1803  the  county  and  township  pohtical  organizations  were 
effected  in  most  places  of  the  middle  States.  Prior  to  the 
election  of  Jefferson  the  situation  in  both  parties  called  for 
organization.  The  attitude  of  Hamilton  toward  Adams  was 
destined  to  effect  factional  disorganization  among  the  Fed- 
erahsts.  The  activity  of  the  Jefferson  followers  was  destined 
to  unify  pohtical  action,  and  the  campaign  which  led  to  the 
selection  of  Burr  as  Jefferson's  running  mate  placed  the  latter 
in  the  front  as  one  of  the  astute  politicians  of  the  country. 
The  defeat  of  Adams  was  the  occasion  for  a  change  of  admin- 
istration from  the  Hamiltonian  to  the  Jeft'ersonian  theory. 
This  was  the  first  opportunity  for  the  Executive  to  assert  his 
party  privilege.  This  opportunity  was  afforded  in  the  treat- 
ment of  the  offices.  Washington  had  observed  certain  rules 
in  his  appointments.  At  least  five  elements  entered  into  his 
consideration  of  appointments:  (i)  Fitness;  (2)  geography; 
(3)  past  ser\'ices;  (4)  previous  experience;  (5)  Httle  pohtical 
bias.  As  between  the  fit  and  the  unfit  he  refused  to  consider 
the  latter,  no  matter  what  his  pohtical  views  might  be.  If  an 
appointment  was  to  be  made,  and  a  desirable  apphcant  was 
found  in  a  section  of  the  country  which  did  not  have  its  pro- 
portion of  the  offices,  such  applicant  would  be  chosen,  if  other 
conditions  permitted.  He  avoided  party  bias.  If  he  ever 
showed  any,  it  was  toward  the  friend  of  the  Constitution  as 
against  that  of  the  old  system,  which  conduct,  of  course,  was 
justifiable. 

Early  removals  from  oflace.  In  the  matter  of  his  removals 
he  acted  from  causal,  not  pohtical,  reasons.  Washington 
made  twenty-three  removals,  six  military  and  seventeen 
civil,  during  his  term  of  office.  Adams  made  twenty-seven  — 
twenty-one  of  which  were  civil  —  during  his  administration. 
When  Jefferson  came  to  the  presidency  there  were,  in  all,  four 
hundred  and  thirty-three  offices  filled  by  appointment.  He 
removed  one  hundred  and  twenty-four;  forty  of  which  were 


34  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

"  midnight  judges,"  twenty-four  collectors,  and  ten  mar- 
shals. His  letter  to  Robert  Livingston  revealed  his  desire  to 
secure  in  the  major  offices  men  of  high  rank  who  possessed 
the  confidence  of  the  people.  The  three  Republican  factions 
in  New  York,  led  respectively  by  Livingston,  CHnton,  and 
Burr,  gave  him  much  concern.  Here  his  procedure  indicated 
that  he  desired  to  reward  his  political  friends.  The  general 
policy  of  Jefferson  relative  to  the  offices  might  be  summed  up 
as  follows : 

(i)  Most  of  the  civil  officers  were  Federalists. 

(2)  In  the  case  of  vacancies,  he  decided  to  appoint  Repub- 
Hcans  until  that  party  had  a  due  proportion. 

(3)  In  the  case  of  "  midnight  judges,"  he  desired  to  rectify 
the  error  in  the  best  possible  manner. 

(4)  Some  changes  in  the  marshals  he  declared  should  be 
made.  His  laconic  statement,  "  None  resign  and  few  die," 
referring  to  appointive  officers,  throws  some  light  upon  his 
attitude  toward  the  offices. 

Jefferson's  theory  of  removals  compared  with  Jackson's. 
It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  Jefferson  did  introduce  the  prin- 
ciple of  rotation  in  office,  and  that  he  did  make  removals 
for  poHtical  advantage,  on  the  ground  that  the  people  had 
pronounced  in  favor  of  his  theory  as  against  that  of  his  oppo- 
nents; and  further  that  he  was  made  responsible  for  the  inaugu- 
ration of  that  theory  which  in  his  mind  justified  the  selection 
of  men  of  his  political  faith. 

To  the  Repubhcans,  and  especially  to  Jefferson  and  Burr, 
the  country  owes  the  effective  steps  toward  party  organiza- 
tion. The  years  just  preceding  the  election  of  Jefferson  saw 
unusual  activity  in  local  communities.  The  want  of  local 
organs  in  the  form  of  newspapers  was  remedied  by  a  system  of 
conferences  and  by  communications  by  correspondence.  By 
these  methods  the  entire  country  was  awakened.  Local 
organizations  were  effected.  Their  influence  was  immediately 
felt  throughout  the  country,  and  especially  in  Pennsylvania, 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES         35 

New  York  and  most  of  New  England;  even  in  ultra-Federalist 
Massachusetts.  By  the  time  of  the  second  election  of  Jefferson 
in  1804,  these  organizations  were  enabled  to  carry  every  State 
in  the  Union,  except  Delaware  and  Rhode  Island,  for  the 
Republican  candidate.  Party  spirit  was  at  high  tide.  Party 
feeling  had  reached  that  stage  where  every  measure  was  dis- 
cussed with  bitterness,  and  was  allowed  to  take  on  a  party 
coloring.  Even  the  impeachment  trial  of  Judge  Samuel 
Chase,  of  ]\Iaryland,  a  Federal  district  judge,  developed  into 
a  partizan  issue. 

Third  party.  The  controversy  with  Spain  over  Western 
Florida  embarrassed  the  Administration  and  led  to  the  breach 
between  Jefferson  and  John  Randolph,  of  Roanoke,  the 
recognized  leader  of  the  House  and  chairman  of  the  committee 
to  which  the  matter  was  referred.  The  followers  of  this 
eccentric  leader,  whom  Benton  said  was  the  "political  meteor 
of  Congress  for  thirty  years,"  were  nick-named  "  Quids," 
from  quid  tertium,  a  third  something.  This  breach  which 
amounted  to  Httle  was  evidence  of  the  strength  of  the  party 
in  power  and  the  weakness  of  the  party  in  opposition. 

Influence  of  the  war.  The  approach  of  the  war  cloud  be- 
tween this  government  and  Great  Britain,  with  the  anti- 
English  party  in  authority  at  Washington,  was  fruitful  occasion 
for  bitter  attacks  upon  the  Administration.  One  of  the  meas- 
ures which  received  unqualified  condemnation  from  the 
dwindling  opposition  was  the  Embargo  Act,  which  was  nick- 
named "  Ograbme  Act,"  which  name  was  not  far  wrong.  At 
this  time  the  Jefferson  party  was  in  power  in  most  of  the 
States,  including  Massachusetts.  The  embargo  policy  struck 
home  in  commercial  New  England.  However,  the  State  under 
the  Republicans  resolved,  "  We  consider  the  imposing  of 
embargo  a  wise  and  highly  expedient  measure,  and  from  its 
impartial  nature  calculated  to  secure  to  us  the  blessings  of 
j)eace."  The  inevitable  reaction  came,  and  in  1808  the  Repub- 
licans were  defeated  in  the  legislature.     The  legislature  at 


36  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

once  instructed  the  Massachusetts  delegation  in  Congress  to 
procure  the  repeal  of  the  act.  Congress,  instead,  replied  by 
the  enactment  of  a  stringent  enforcement  law.  Then  followed 
the  famous  protest  of  Massachusetts,  which  has  been  wrongly 
quoted  as  declaring  the  principle  of  State  Sovereignty.  On 
the  contrary,  it  declared  the  principle  of  National  Supremacy. 
However,  the  reply  of  the  Federalist  House  to  the  Republican 
governor's  criticism  of  the  attitude  of  certain  sections  of  the 
State  in  their  town  meetings,  clearly  asserted  the  doctrine  of 
the  State's  right  to  judge  of  the  constitutionaHty  of  a  Federal 
law.  The  House  in  its  answer  declared  that  "  We  are  un- 
wilhng  to  believe  that  any  man  can  be  weak  or  wicked  enough 
to  construe  a  disposition  to  support  that  Constitution  and 
preserve  the  Union  by  a  temperate  and  firm  opposition  to  acts 
which  are  repugnant  to  the  first  principles  and  purposes  of 
both,  into  a  wish  to  recede  from  the  other  States  .  .  .  The 
legislature  and  people  of  the  State  of  Massachusetts  ever  have 
been  and  now  are  firmly  and  sincerely  attached  to  the  Union 
of  the  States,  and  there  is  no  sacrifice  they  have  not  been,  and 
are  not  now  willing  to  submit  to,  in  order  to  preserve  the  same, 
according  to  its  original  purpose." 

New  England's  attitude.  The  resolutions  of  the  two  branches 
of  the  Massachusetts  General  Assembly  on  the  Enforcement 
Act  of  Congress  came  dangerously  near  the  Calhoun  theory 
of  nullification.  They  resolved  that  in  the  opinion  of  the 
legislature  the  Enforcement  Act  of  Congress  is  "in  many 
respects,  unjust,  oppressive,  and  unconstitutional,  and  not 
legally  binding  upon  the  citizens  of  this  State."  They  did  not 
declare  openly  the  positive  right  to  nullify,  but  they  did  assert 
that  the  law  was  not  binding.  It  was  recommended  that  the 
State  should  co-operate  with  other  States  in  all  legal  and  con- 
stitutional measures  to  secure  necessary  amendments  to  the 
Federal  Constitution  to  obtain  commercial  protection.  An 
examination  of  the  action  of  the  State  will  show  a  striking  sim- 
ilarity to  that  of  Kentucky  in  the  adoption  of  the  Kentucky 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES        37 

Resolutions.  The  latter  made  less  profession  of  allegiance  to 
the  Union,  but  went  no  further  than  did  Massachusetts  in 
declaring  a  Federal  law  unconstitutional  and  therefore  not 
binding. 

In  January,  1809,  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Delaware 
took  a  position  on  the  point  in  dispute.  A  strenuous  effort  was 
made  to  secure  an  endorsement  of  the  national  Administration 
but  it  was  defeated,  and  the  House  declared  that  the  Enforce- 
ment Act  was  "an  invasion  of  the  liberty  of  the  people,  and 
the  constitutional  sovereignty  of  the  State  government." 
Without  defining  State  Sovereignty,  it  further  declared  that 
"they  will  use  the  remedy  pointed  out  by  the  Constitution 
for  the  evils  under  which  they  suffer,  rather  than  jeopardize 
the  Union  of  the  States  and  the  independence  of  their  country 
by  an  open  opposition  to  the  laws." 

Connecticut  took  an  advanced  position  and  declared  it  to 
be  the  duty  of  the  legislature,  in  such  a  crisis,  vigilantly  to 
watch  over  and  vigorously  to  maintain  the  powers  not  dele- 
gated to  the  United  States  but  reserved  to  the  States  respec- 
tively, or  to  the  people.  It  further  declared  that  "  a  due 
regard  to  this  duty  will  not  permit  this  assembly  to  assist,  or 
concur  in  giving  effect  to  the  aforesaid  unconstitutional  act, 
passed  to  enforce  the  embargo."  It  also  commended  Gover- 
nor Trumbull  in  declining  to  designate  persons  to  carry  into 
effect  by  the  aid  of  military  power  the  aforesaid  act., 

Rhode  Island  declared  the  Enforcement  law,  "  in  many  of  its 
provisions  un'ust,  oppressive,  unconstitutional,  and  tyranni- 
cal;" and  while  cautious  not  to  infringe  upon  the  Constitution 
and  delegated  powers  and  rights  of  the  general  government, 
the  general  assembly  should  "be  vigilant  in  guarding  from 
usurpation  and  violation  those  powers  and  rights  which  the 
good  people  of  this  State  have  expressly  reserved  to  them- 
selves and  have  ever  refused  to  delegate." 

History  repeats  itself.  The  close  of  the  administration  of 
the  elder  Adams  was  disturbed  by  the  agitation  over  the  Ken- 


38  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

tucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions  which  stand  as  the  pronounce- 
ment of  the  Virginia  theory  of  poHtics.  At  the  close  of  his 
administration  Jefferson  was  embarrassed  by  a  similar  attitude 
of  the  New  England  opposition  to  his  policy  of  embargo. 
Massachusetts  made  a  pronouncement  of  the  relative  rights 
of  the  government  and  the  States,  which  did  not  pretend  to 
enter  into  the  theory  of  Federal  government  as  was  done  by 
the  two  Southern  States,  but  which  did  call  in  question  the 
constitutionality  of  a  Federal  enactment.  This  attitude  was 
seconded  by  Delaware,  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island.  All 
the  other  States,  save  New  Hampshire,  were  in  the  hands  of 
the  Republicans. 

United  States  against  Peters.  The  most  acute  stage  in  this 
conflict  between  the  two  authorities  was  reached  in  1808,  in 
the  famous  case  of  United  States  against  Peters.  This  case, 
in  one  form  or  another,  was  before  the  courts  for  thirty  years. 
It  grew  out  of  an  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  a  Pennsylvania 
court  to  the  Committee  of  Appeals  of  Congress.  The  decision 
of  the  Pennsylvania  court  was  reversed,  but  the  State  authori- 
ties succeeded  in  preventing  the  satisfaction  of  the  judgment 
on  the  ground  of  want  of  jurisdiction  of  the  appellant  court. 
Application- was  made  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  to  command  the  execution  of  judgment.  Chief  Justice 
Marshall  granted  it,  declaring  that 

If  the  legislatures  of  the  several  States  may  at  will  annul  the  judg- 
ments of  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  and  destroy  the  rights  acquired 
under  those  judgments,  the  Constitution  itself  becomes  a  solemn  mockery, 
and  the  nation  is  deprived  of  the  means  of  enforcing  its  laws  by  the 
instrumentality  of  its  own  tribunals. 

The  attempt  of  the  United  States  officer  to  serve  the  writ 
was  resisted  by  the  State  militia.  Finally,  the  State  receded 
far  enough  to  allow  the  national  decree  to  be  enforced.  The 
Pennsylvania  legislature  recommended  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  providing  against  a  recurrence  of  the  unfortunate 


ORGANIZATIOX  IX  THE   UNITED   STATES       39 

circumstance.  This  recommendation  was  sent  to  the  several 
States  for  concurrence.  Eleven  States  replied,  each  one 
repudiating  it.  In  the  list  were  seven  Southern  States,  includ- 
ing Kentucky  and  \'irginia.  The  strongest  position  against 
the  plan  was  taken  by  Virginia,  which  is  significant  in  view  of 
that  State's  former  position.  Her  resolutions  in  reply  de- 
clared that  the  Supreme  Court  was  the  best  qualified  body  to 
decide  such  matters  that  could  be  erected;  that  the  Judiciary 
was  the  least  dangerous  of  the  three  departments;  that  the 
Judiciary  held  neither  the  purse  nor  the  sword  and  had  to 
depend  upon  the  Executive  for  the  enforcement  of  its  decrees. 
She  therefore  resolved  to  disapprove  of  the  proposition  to  amend 
the  Federal  Constitution  to  limit  the  powers  of  the  Judiciary. 
Pennsylvania,  chagrined  at  the  attitude  of  the  other  States, 
resolved  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote 

That  the  sovereignty  and  the  independence  of  the  States,  as  guar- 
anteed by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  ought  to  be  most  zeal- 
ously guarded,  and  every  attempt  to  depreciate  the  value  of  those  rights, 
and  to  consolidate  these  States  into  one  general  government,  is  hostile  to 
the  Uberty  and  happiness  of  the  people,  and  merits  our  most  decided  dis- 
approbation. 

It  further  justified  the  efforts  of  the  governor  of  the  State 
in  his  efforts  to  sustain  the  "rights  and  sovereignty  of  the 
State,  under  the  act  of  1803." 

Democratic  Pennsylvania.  There  had  ever  been  a  strong 
Jeffersonian  element  in  Pennsylvania,  which  watched  with 
vigilant  care  the  rights  of  local  self-government.  As  far  back 
as  the  contention  over  the  Presque  Isle  case,  when  Governor 
Mifflin  requested  of  the  general  government  a  justification  for 
the  suspension  of  positive  law  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  by 
executive  advice,  the  jealousy  of  the  State  had  been  aroused. 
The  governor  remarked  in  reference  to  the  above  suspension, 
"I  could  not  think  that  he  (the  President)  would  deliver  an 
opinion  to  the  executive  of  a  State  which  it  might  be  thought 
indelicate  to  disregard  and  illegal  to  adopt." 


40  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY    ^ 

In  the  famous  Whisky  Insurrection  in  western  Pennsylvania, 
the  same  governor  called  in  question  the  legality  of  the  Presi- 
dent's act  calling  out  the  miUtia  to  suppress  the  insurrection. 
However,  his  long  harangue  was  on  a  matter  of  fact  rather 
than  of  law. 

On  the  expiration  of  the  charter  of  the  United  States  Bank, 
opposition  to  the  rechartering  of  it  developed  in  Pennsylvania 
as  in  other  States.  Pennsylvania  was  one  of  the  first  to 
protest  against  a  renewal  of  the  charter.  On  the  nth  of 
January,  1811,  the  State  declared  itself  as  follows  upon  the 
sovereignty  of  the  State: 

The  act  of  union  thus  entered  into  being  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
a  treaty  between  sovereign  States,  the  general  government  by  this  treaty 
was  not  constituted  the  exclusive  or  final  judge  of  the  powers  it  was  to 
exercise. 

It  asserted  the  right  of  the  States  to  apply  the  remedy  for 
an  unconstitutional  act  of  the  Federal  government.  It  further 
declared  that  the  incorporation  of  a  bank  to  do  business  within 
the  limits  of  the  State  without  the  consent  of  the  State  is 
unconstitutional. 

At  this  time  the  Federal  theory  (sometimes  called  the  Vir- 
ginia theory,  and  sometimes  the  Jeffersonian  theory)  was 
dominant  in  the  land.  The  Pennsylvania  House  of  Represent- 
atives went  farther  in  its  advocacy  of  it  than  the  Virginia 
Resolutions;  but  the  Senate  refused  to  go  so  far. 

Jealousy  between  power  and  freedom.  The  second  war 
with  England,  as  before  mentioned,  was  the  occasion  for 
studied  opposition  to  the  poHcy  of  the  Administration.  When 
at  last  the  war  party  succeeded  in  forcing  the  Administration 
to  declare  war  (June  18,  181 2)  Madison,  the  man  who  wrote 
the  Virginia  Resolutions,  now  the  Chief  Executive  of  the 
nation,  made  requisitions  upon  the  States  for  the  State  mihtia. 
Governor  Strong  of  Massachusetts  refused  to  make  the  call 
until  he  was  informed  of  the  legahty  of  the  requisition.  He 
admitted  that  the  President  had  the  authority  to  call  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES        41 

militia  in  cases  of  "  insurrection  and  invasion,"  but  desired 
to  be  instructed  on  two  points:  (i)  Who  was  to  determine 
whether  the  exigency  for  the  requisition  exists;  the  nation  or 
the  State?  (2)  Can  any  other  national  officer  command  the 
mihtia  when  in  the  service  of  the  government,  except  the  Presi- 
dent? The  governor  informed  the  Secretary  of  War  that  he 
had  applied  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  for  the  desired 
information.  Judges  Parsons,  Sewall  and  Parker  signed  an 
opinion  that  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  the  exigencies  for 
calUng  out  the  militia  is  to  be  determined  by  the  commanders- 
in-chief  of  the  mihtia  of  the  several  States.  They  decided  on 
the  second  question,  that  the  Constitution  did  not  warrant 
any  officer  of  the  army  of  the  United  States  to  command  the 
militia. 

Madison,  the  President,  is  not  Madison  the  legislator. 
This  attitude  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  States  called  out  a 
special  reference  to  the  matter  by  President  Madison,  who, 
after  criticizing  the  conduct  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut 
in  their  refusal  to  call  out  their  mihtia,  observed: 

It  is  obvious  that  if  the  authority  of  the  United  States  to  call  into 
service  and  command  the  militia  for  the  public  defense  can  be  thus  frus- 
trated, even  in  a  state  of  declared  war,  they  are  not  one  nation,  and  must 
have  recourse  to  permanent  military  establishments,  which  are  forbidden 
by  the  principles  of  our  free  government,  and  against  the  necessity  of 
which  the  militia  were  meant  to  be  a  constitutional  bulwark. 

Here  again  the  tables  are  turned.  The  author  of  the 
Virginia  Resolutions,  which  were  intended  to  place  a  limit 
upon  the  Federal  prerogative,  finds  himself  in  the  position  of 
responsibility,  and  compelled  to  exercise  the  prerogative 
required  for  effective  administration.  Before,  it  was  Virginia 
protesting  against  Massachusetts;  now  it  is  Massachusetts 
protesting  against  Virginia.  Any  political  theory  may  serve 
as  a  basis  for  party  policy,  but  not  be  competent  for  practical 
administration.  In  administration,  theory  must,  as  a  rule, 
give  way  to  practise. 


42  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

State  rights  tendencies  in  New  England.  Connecticut, 
which  in  1798  repudiated  the  State  Sovereignty  theory,  now, 
in  181 2,  declared  — 

That  the  State  of  Connecticut  is  a  free,  sovereign,  and  independent 
State;  that  the  United  States  are  a  confederacy  of  States;  that  we  are  a 
confederated  and  not  a  consoUdated  republic. 

The  State  declared  it  the  duty  of  the  governor  to  maintain 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  free,  sovereign,  and  independent 
State,  as  well  as  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Rhode  Island  and  Vermont  followed  the  lead  of 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut.  In  Vermont  the  situation 
reached  a  critical  stage.  When  the  legislature  endorsed  the 
governor  in  his  refusal  to  call  out  the  militia,  the  governor 
commanded  the  recall  of  that  portion  of  the  militia  ordered 
from  the  State  and  placed  under  the  command  of  the  United 
States  officers.  Congress  ordered  the  governor  to  be  tried 
for  treason.  Massachusetts  endorsed  the  conduct  of  the 
State.  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  condemned  it  in  bitter 
terms.  In  all  of  these  cases  the  States  insisted  that  their 
devotion  to  the  Federal  Constitution  was  undiminished. 
They  emphasized  the  distinction  between  the  ''  Constitution  " 
and  the  "Administration.'-'  They  insisted  they  could  only 
be  true  to  the  Constitution  by  repudiating  the  Administration. 

The  New  England  conspiracy.  The  most  distinctive  effort 
in  the  North  tending  to  the  Federal  as  against  the  national 
system  is  what  is  frequently  referred  to  as  the  "New  England 
Conspiracy."  The  names  most  frequently  mentioned  in 
connection  with  this  event  are  Pickering,  Griswold,  Tracy  and 
Plumer,  with  occasional  mention  of  Josiah  Quincy.  Naturally 
the  Federalists,  who  had  inaugurated  the  new  government 
and  had  held  full  control  for  its  first  decade  of  existence,  worked 
themselves  into  the  belief  that  the  cause  of  American  society 
depended  upon  their  continuance  in  power.  The  mere  sug- 
gestion that  their  opponents,  led  by  a  Democrat  of  the  type  of 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES       43 

Jefferson,  might  displace  them,  was  heralded  by  them  as  fatal 
to  society. 

In  New  England,  the  citadel  of  Federalism,  ominous  threats 
were  afloat.  ]Much  disunion  gossip  was  heard.  Timothy 
Pickering,  Secretary  of  War  under  Washington,  and  later 
Secretary  of  State  under  Adams,  saw  in  united  New  England 
the  remedy  for  disintegrating  FederaHsm.  He  declared  that 
Massachusetts  must  take  the  lead;  that  Connecticut  and  New 
Hampshire  would  welcome  it;  that  New  York  must  be  inter- 
ested in  some  possible  way;  then  Vermont  and  New  Jersey 
would  follow  of  course,  and  Rhode  Island  of  necessity.  Gris- 
wold  of  Connecticut,  the  most  extreme  member  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  felt  that  the  three  States  still  remaining 
Federalist  should  by  legislative  action  take  the  initiative  in 
calling  a  reunion  of  the  Northern  States.  The  Federalist 
leaders  did  not  all  agree  to  the  advisabihty  of  such  a  course. 
George  Cabot  pronounced  it  impracticable,  at  the  same  time 
deploring  the  fate  of  the  nation  under  the  control  of  the  "ran- 
ters of  Democracy."  He  felt  that  a  ''  separation  was  un- 
avoidable when  loyalty  to  the  Union  is  generally  perceived  to 
be  the  instrument  of  debasement  and  impoverishment."  The 
distinguished  Judge  Reeve  wrote,  "  All  I  have  seen  and  most 
I  have  heard  from  beheve  that  we  must  separate."  Griswold 
grew  impatient  at  the  lack  of  interest  in  the  separation  project 
on  the  part  of  some  of  the  men  who,  as  he  urged,  ought  to  be 
most  interested  in  it.  But  such  ill-advised  efforts  usually 
overleap  the  bounds  of  prudence,  and  thus  it  was  in  the  abor- 
tive attempts  of  these  Federalist  leaders. 

Its  extent.  The  project  was  principally  confined  to  a 
coterie  of  men,  who,  from  their  process  of  thinking,  really 
believed  that  the  end  of  government  would  appear  with  the 
inauguration  of  Democracy,  a  doctrine  which  they  declared  to 
be  the  sum  of  all  unwisdom.  Such  an  aggregation  as  this 
woukl  naturally  resort  to  many  queer  expedients  to  achieve 
their  object.     Every  indication  pointed  to  the  party's  hopeless 


44  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

defeat  in  the  nation.  Even  in  its  stronghold  New  England, 
its  defeat  was  assured  if  recuperative  measures  were  not 
immediately  taken.  The  rank  and  file  were  torn  to  shreds  by 
the  ambitions  of  the  leaders.  The  party  united  was  super- 
seded by  factions  at  war.  The  supreme  need  of  the  hour  was 
an  aggressive  leader,  one  who  possessed  both  the  power  of 
party  organization  and  personal  magnetism. 

Burr's  position.  Political  exigencies  pointed  to  Aaron 
Burr  as  the  most  available  leader.  As  a  political  machine 
builder,  and  as  a  manipulator  of  the  same,  he  had  no  equal  in 
public  life.  As  to  personal  magnetism  his  charms  were  hyp- 
notic, both  in  private  and  in  public  hfe.  As  a  politician  he 
could  espouse  the  Federahsts'  cause  with  little  violence  to 
his  conscience.  As  the  recognized  leader  of  his  party  in  New 
York,  he  held  a  commanding  position  in  a  most  important 
State.  As  Vice-President  under  Jefferson,  his  conduct  was 
such  as  to  prove  him  not  in  sympathy  with  his  chief.  Under 
these  circumstances  he  became  the  logical  leader  to  win  from 
the  dominant  party  the  disaffected.  The  situation  excited  the 
enthusiasm  of  the  "  conspirators  "  in  New  England  and  soon 
overtures  were  made  to  him.  The  deepest  possible  resent- 
ment was  aroused  in  some,  if  not  most,  of  the  old  time  rank  and 
file  of  the  Federalist  party.  But  nothing  succeeds  like  success. 
In  times  of  hopeless  defeat  an  army  will  desert  its  general  on 
the  field  of  battle,  and  the  ruling  power  will  not  only  degrade, 
but  court-martial  and  execute  him.  Hamilton  was  acceptable 
while  he  succeeded,  but  his  transcendent  qualities  were  at  a 
discount  in  defeat.  The  argument  which  deposes  such  leaders 
in  such  crises,  knows  no  consistency,  no  gratitude,  and  little 
wisdom. 

Hamilton's  position.  Against  the  most  strenuous  efforts 
of  Hamilton  and  his  loyal  followers,  his  party  decided  to 
nominate  Burr,  a  Jeffersonian  Democrat  in  theory  but  any- 
thing in  practise,  as  the  FederaKst  candidate  for  governor  of 
New  York.     This  act  was  in  keeping  with  the  avowed  purpose 


ORGAXIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES       45 

of  some  of  the  leaders  to  "make  New  York  the  center  of  the 
confederacy."  Hamilton  was  the  greatest  opponent  of  the 
project.  It  is  claimed  that  his  opposition  was  due  to  the  fear 
of  being  displaced  as  the  leader  of  his  party.  This  can 
scarcely  be  credited.  Displacement  by  his  rival  would  be 
distasteful  in  the  extreme,  but  this  can  not  be  urged  as  the 
basis  for  his  opposition  to  the  fatal  theory  of  Pickerino-  and 
Griswold.  His  very  mental  organization  refutes  such  a  state- 
ment. His  elaboration  of  poHtical  theory,  which  is  abundant, 
is  permeated  with  the  very  opposite  view.  His  invaluable 
ser\dce  in  securing  the  ratification  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
and  his  passion  for  law  and  order  preclude  the  possibiHty  of 
such  a  basis  for  his  action.  His  powers  of  persuasion  were 
sufficient  to  prevent  his  party  from  committing  itself  to  the 
fatal  blunder  urged  by  the  separatists,  but  not  sufficient  to 
forestall  their  determination  to  name  Burr  as  their  guberna- 
torial candidate. 

Result  of  the  New  York  election.  The  election  was  held 
in  April,  1804.  Burr  was  defeated  by  Chnton  whose  majority 
was  about  seven  thousand.  Thus  was  taught  one  of  the  earli- 
est lessons  in  partizan  history,  repeated  often  since  in  both 
State  and  Federal  elections;  namely,  failure  awaits  the  elTorts 
of  the  party  which  bids  more  for  the  weakening  of  the  oppo- 
nent's ranks  than  for  the  strengthening  of  its  own.  To  steal 
another's  thunder  sounds  well  as  a  political  aphorism,  but 
works  ill  in  political  practise.  Nothing  is  more  forceful  in  a 
campaign  than  a  clearly  defined  policy  backed  by  positive 
convictions. 

Hamilton's  aversion  to  Burr  as  a  political  leader  was  a 
powerful  factor  in  the  latter's  defeat,  and  led  to  the  chaHcnge 
sent  by  Burr,  the  duel  which  resulted  in  the  death  of  Hamil- 
ton, and  the  political  eclipse  of  his  rival,  who  henceforth 
became  a  fugitive,  hunted  like  a  beast.  This  tragedy  put  an 
end  to  the  New  England  talk  of  separation.  It  died  with  the 
flight  of  its  ill-fated  figure-head. .  The  death  of  Hamilton  was 


46  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

reasonably  regarded  as  the  falling  of  the  main  prop  of  national 
government.  His  death  was  universally  mourned  throughout 
New  England.  It  unified  the  sentiment  for  which  he  stood  as 
no  other  incident  could.  Hamiltonian  theory  received  an 
impetus.  Those  of  his  party  who  had  stood  against  him  were 
now  in  political  hiding.  But  the  party  never  fully  recovered 
from  the  stroke.  It  was  the  beginning  of  the  end  of  Federal- 
ism, when  the  people  saw  only  one  party,  which  fact  led 
Jefferson  to  say,  "  We  are  all  Repubhcans." 

New  England  not  Jeffersonian.  These  isolated  references 
to  heads  of  factions  and  fugitive  attempts  of  disaffected  poH- 
ticians,  which  reveal  a  spirit  tending  to  dissolve  the  Union, 
should  not  stand  for  the  mind  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of 
the  States  in  which  such  agitators  were  found.  There  never 
was  a  time  in  New  England  when  the  vast  majority  of  the 
people  were  not  behevers  in  the  national  theory,  as  perhaps 
there  never  was  a  time  when  a  majority  of  the  people  in 
the  South  were  not  strongly  inclined  to  the  Federal  theory. 
John  Quincy  Adams,  who  was  not  a  Hamilton  partizan,  was 
at  the  head  of  the  Union  sentiment  in  Massachusetts,  and  his 
standing  reveals  a  potent  element  loyal  to  the  national  idea. 
The  blunders  of  some  of  the  Federalist  leaders  due  to  their 
fears,  their  foolish  opposition  to  the  measures  of  the  adminis- 
trations of  Jefferson  and  Madison,  and  especially  the  wild 
schemes  of  the  "  conspirators,"  caused  the  rank  and  file  to 
abandon,  not  FederaHst  principles,  but  the  practises  of  Fed- 
erahst  leaders. 

Her  State  rights  profession  exceptional.  On  the  agitation 
for  the  admission  of  Louisiana,  Josiah  Quincy  represented  an 
element  in  his  section  when  he  declaimed  against  the  admission 
of  the  State  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  warranted  by  the 
Constitution.  He  counseled  withdrawal  from  the  Union  by 
the  New  England  States  as  the  best  means  of  protection  against 
the  disproportionate  power  of  the  South  and  West.  This 
sentiment  was  not  wide-spread,  but  was  of  the  fugitive  sort 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES        47 

found  in  every  State  on  various  occasions.  The  circumstance 
of  a  war,  prosecuted  by  the  RepubHcan  Administration,  to  the 
almost  total  destruction  of  commerce  —  the  source  of  wealth 
—  induced  many  individuals  to  threaten  resistance;  hence  the 
seeming  reversal  of  theory:  namely,  a  Jeffersonian  President 
adopting  the  Hamiltonian  theory  of  strong  central  authority, 
against  a  Hamiltonian  section  adopting  the  Jeffersonian 
theory  of  the  rights  of  the  States. 

On  June  16,  18 13,  the  general  court  of  Massachusetts  took 
strong  ground  on  the  Administration's  pohcy  of  territorial 
extension,  charging  the  Administration  with  unconstitutional 
usurpation.  On  the  following  June  it  again  protested  against 
the  Administration's  embargo  policy,  and  reminded  the 
President  of  his  attitude  in  1798  when  he  "  led  the  legislature 
of  Virginia  into  an  opposition  without  any  justifiable  cause; 
yet  it  may  be  supposed  that  he  and  all  others  who  understand 
the  principles  of  our  concurrent  sovereignty  will  acknowledge 
the  fitness  and  propriety  of  their  asserting  rights  which  no 
people  can  ever  rehnquish."  The  general  court  resolved  that 
the  embargo  of  1813  was  unconstitutional;  that  the  people  of 
the  State  have  a  right  to  be  protected  from  unreasonable 
searches  and  seizures;  that  they  have  a  right  of  protection  in 
the  enjoyment  of  fife,  liberty,  and  property  according  to  law. 

The  attitude  of  the  New  England  States  in  refusing  to  com- 
ply with  the  requisition  of  the  President  to  call  out  the  State 
militia,  led  the  Administration  to  abandon  the  New  England 
coast  and  thus  compel  the  States  to  adopt  their  own  methods 
of  protection  from  invasion.  The  legislature  of  Massachu- 
setts proceeded  to  make  necessary  provision  for  protection, 
by  authorizing  the  raising  of  a  military  corps  of  ten  thousand 
men.  It  also  recommended  a  convention  of  the  New  England 
States  in  order  that  concerted  action  in  defense  from  inva- 
sions might  be  assured.  There  was  stubborn  opi)osition  to 
this  convention  in  both  Senate  and  House.  The  committee 
reported  in  favor  of  such  a  convention,  giving  its  reasons,  and 


48  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

the  report  was  adopted  on  October  15,  18 14.  Two  days  later 
the  governor  of  Massachusetts  sent  out  the  call.  It  stated  the 
object  of  the  convention  to  be  "  to  dehberate  upon  the 
dangers  to  which  the  Eastern  section  of  the  Union  is  exposed 
by  the  course  of  the  war,  and  to  devise,  if  practicable,  means 
of  security  and  defense  not  repugnant  to  their  obligations  as 
members  of  the  Union."  Another  object  was  to  consider 
the  feasibility  of  calling  a  convention  of  all  the  States  to  amend 
the  Constitution  so  as  to  secure  equal  advantages.  The  call 
closed  with  the  following:  "  This  legislature  is  content  for  its 
justification  to  repose  upon  the  purity  of  its  own  motives, 
and  upon  the  known  attachment  of  its  constituents  to  the 
national  Union,  and  to  the  rights  and  independence  of  their 
country." 

The  Hartford  convention.  The  convention  met  at  Hartford 
on  the  15th  of  December  and  continued  in  session  until  the 
5  th  of  January.  Their  sessions  were  behind  closed  doors. 
There  were  twenty-six  delegates  representing  Massachusetts, 
Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  New  Hampshire  and  Vermont. 
The  convention  organized -by  electing  George  Cabot  chair- 
man. It  adopted  a  series  of  six  resolutions,  and  recommended 
seven  amendments  to  the  Federal  Constitution. 

Its  first  resolution  was  that  the  States  should  adopt  such 
measures  necessary  to  protect  the  citizens  from  the  opera- 
tions and  effects  of  all  acts  which  have  been  passed  by  Congress 
containing  provisions  subjecting  the  militia  or  other  citizens 
to  forcible  drafts,  conscriptions,  and  impressments  not  author- 
ized by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

The  second  referred  to  the  organizing  of  the  mihtia  for  the 
purpose  of  repelHng  any  invasion  made  by  the  pubhc  enemy. 

The  third  made  application  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States  that  each  State  be  permitted  to  provide  for  its 
own  defense;  and  a  reasonable  portion  of  the  taxes  raised  in 
said  State  to  be  applied  to  such  defense. 

The  fourth  referred  to  amendments  as  follows: 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IX   THE  UNITED   STATES       49 

1.  That  congressional  representation  be  based  upon  free  persons, 
including  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians 
not  taxed. 

2.  That  two-thirds  of  both  Houses  shall  be  necessary  to  admit  a  new 
State. 

3.  That  embargoes  shall  be  limited  to  sixty  days. 

4.  That  two-thirds  of  both  Houses  shall  be  necessary  to  interdict 
commerce. 

5.  That  two-thirds  of  both  Houses  shall  be  necessary  to  declare  war. 

6.  That  members  of  Congress  and  Federal  officers  must  be  natural- 
born  citizens. 

7.  That  the  President  shall  be  ineligible  to  succeed  himself.  No  State 
can  furnish  two  Presidents  in  succession. 

The  fifth  resolution  declared  in  case  of  the  failure  of  the 
foregoing,  and  the  States  were  left  without  protection,  another 
convention  shall  be  called  to  meet  at  Boston  with  necessary 
powers  to  act  as  the  crisis  may  dictate. 

The  last  resolution  provided  for  a  second  meeting  of  the 
convention  if  necessary,  by  appointing  a  committee  with 
instructions. 

These  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  legislatures  of  Mas- 
sachusetts and  Connecticut  only.  The  proposed  amendments 
were  repudiated  by  Vermont,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Penn- 
sylvania, Virginia,  North  CaroHna,  Tennessee,  Ohio  and 
Louisiana.  The  unfortunate  feature  of  these  resolutions  was 
their  ambiguity.  Strenuous  efforts  have  been  made  by  sin- 
cere men  to  show  that  Secession  had  no  place  in  them.  It  is 
asserted  that  nullification  was  not  endorsed;  that  the  pro- 
cedure was  in  accordance  with  an  expressed  right  guaranteed 
by  the  Constitution  in  the  very  first  clause  of  the  Bill  of  Rights: 
namely,  the  right  to  assemble  and  petition  the  government  for 
the  redress  of  grievances.  However,  the  fair  mind  must  read 
a  spirit  of  defiance  in  at  least  one  of  the  resolutions. 

The  proceedings  of  the  convention  were  at  once  published. 
The  treaty  of  Ghent,  officially  ending  the  war  with  England, 
had  been  signed  at  least  two  weeks  before  the  adjournment 


50  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

of  the  Hartford  convention.  An  attack  upon  the  war  policy 
of  an  Administration  is  an  attack  against  the  strongest  national 
passion.  No  issue  can  be  made  more  popular  than  that  of  war, 
when  an  adequate  cause  is  involved;  and  especially  is  this 
true  when  the  v;ar  is  against  a  foreign  nation.  The  mere 
criticism  of  the  prosecution  of  a  war  is  resented  by  the  people. 
Every  poHtical  party  in  this  country  has  learned  this  fact,  and 
many  leaders  have  felt  it. 

Its  general  effect.  The  Hartford  convention  was  the 
death  sentence  of  the  Federalist  party.  Its  conspicuous  blun- 
ders in  the  opposition  to  the  extension  of  our  boundary  hne  in 
the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  its  flirtation  with  Burr,  its  incon- 
sistent opposition  to  the  embargo  legislation,  its  opposition  to 
the  war  and  finally  the  Hartford  convention,  —  were  marked 
symptoms  of  speedy  dissolution.  The  election  of  1816  gave 
Monroe  every  State  except  Massachusetts,  Connecticut  and 
Delaware,  and  the  election  of  1820  the  vote  of  every  State 
except  the  single  ballot  of  Plumer,  of  New  Hampshire,  who 
questioned  Monroe's  fitness. 

We  shall  see  in  the  next  chapter  that  the  elimination  of  party 
lines  did  not  eliminate  political  theory. 


CHAPTER   III 

THOMAS   JEFFERSON,   THE  REPRESENTATIVE   OF  LIBERTY 

IN   GOVERNMENT 

The  philosophy  of  Jefferson.  Leadership  comprehends 
many  talents.  Not  infrequently  the  strongest,  at  least  the 
most  pronounced,  element,  is  personality.  This,  as  a  factor 
of  leadership  is  not  abiding.  It  is  as  spasmodic  as  its  duration 
is  brief.  It  must  be  reinforced  by  a  sane  theory  in  the  advo- 
cacy of  which  the  personahty  may  be  employed.  The  leader- 
ship of  Jefferson  must  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  his  poKtical 
theories.  The  one  dominant  note  in  his  philosophy  is  liberty. 
This  word  comprehends  most  nearly  his  philosophy.  Its 
realization  was  his  ambition,  its  embodiment  in  legal  enact- 
ment, his  career. 

Perhaps  he  was  less  positive  in  his  nature  than  negative. 
This  was  due  to  his  well  defined  fears  of  the  normal  tendencies 
of  power  to  deny  needful  freedom.  There  is  a  clear  note  in 
most  of  his  sayings  which  reveals  a  distrust.  He  fears  not  the 
people  as  he  does  the  government.  This  is  due  to  the  nature 
of  government,  which  seemed  in  a  degree  to  be  incompatible 
with  the  exercise  of  requisite  liberty.  This  fear  colored  most 
of  his  utterances. 

Sources  of  his  philosophy.  His  was  the  freedom  of  the  hills, 
of  the  expanse  of  country,  of  the  open  sky.  He  loved  the 
country  as  distinguished  from  the  city.  He  urged  the  pur- 
suit of  agriculture  as  against  manufacturing.  He  expressed  a 
hope  that  our  people  would  remain  tillers  of  the  soil.    He  would 

51 


52  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

be  glad  to  see  the  workshops  remain  in  Europe.  He  thor- 
oughly believed  that  "cultivators  of  the  earth  make  the 
best  citizens."  He  declared  them  to  be  the  most  vigorous, 
the  most  virtuous,  and  the  most  independent,  since  "  they  were 
tied  to  their  country,  and  wedded  to  its  liberty  and  inter- 
ests by  the  most  lasting  bonds."  He  declared  to  John  Jay 
that  "  artificers  were  panderers  of  vice  and  the  instruments  by 
which  the  liberties  of  a  country  are  generally  overthrown." 
In  referring  to  the  scourge  of  yellow  fever  he  thought  its  pres- 
ence providential  as  the  disseminator  of  the  people  into  the 
rural  regions,  away  from  the  great  cities,  which  were  breeders 
of  immorality  and  dangers  to  the  health  and  liberties  of  the 
people.  The  necessary  restraint  which  pertains  to  the  city 
was  an  evil  in  the  degree  that  it  denied  certain  enjoyment  of 
liberty  in  the  occupant,  and  in  that  degree  prevented  a  health- 
ful growth  of  the  citizen. 

Forms  of  its  expression.  The  intensely  practical  citizen 
of  his  country  can  not  understand  why  the  great  Democrat 
would  choose  as  his  residence  a  small  mountain  at  least  six 
hundred  feet  above  the  surrounding  country.  It  appeals  to 
his  practical  sense  as  a  great  inconvenience  in  location,  which 
it  was.  However,  its  outlook  far  outweighed  the  incon- 
venience of  approach,  to  the  citizen  whose  very  breath  was 
freedom.  Here  his  view  was  disturbed  only  by  the  distant 
Blue  Ridge  nearly  fifty  miles  away.  It  was  an  ideal  spot  for 
the  reveries  of  the  apostle  of  Hberty. 

The  growth  of  the  commercial  spirit  in  New  England  at 
first  induced  him  to  pity  the  Yankee  and  later  to  dishke  him 
quite  generally.  In  advising  a  friend  on  the  education  of  his 
child,  he  urged  a  Southern  college,  such  as  that  at  Columbia, 
South  Carolina,  rather  than  a  New  England  institution,  upon 
the  grounds  of  fears  of  distorted  views  of  life  so  prevalent  in 
that  section. 

An  early  experience  with  arbitrary  rule.  His  experience 
induced  a  spirit  of  fear  of  governmental  restraint  and  very 


Thomas  Jefferson 


S3 


54  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

naturally  accentuated  the  importance  of  the  largest  expression 
of  liberty  in  the  citizen.  As  he  viewed  it  there  was  nothing 
to  fear  from  the  people  of  agricultural  Virginia,  but  much  from 
the  intrusions  of  royal  governors  in  their  midst.  This  belief 
was  intensified  by  an  accident  in  his  career  as  a  legislator.  He 
took  his  seat  as  a  member  of  the  Virginia  legislature  in  1769 
with  Washington.  On  the  third  day  of  the  session  four 
resolutions  were  adopted,  declaring  against  taxation  without 
representation,  the  transportation  act,  urging  co-operation 
of  the  colonies  for  redress  of  grievances,  and  a  formal  remon- 
strance to  the  King.  On  the  fifth  day  the  royal  governor  dis- 
solved the  legislature.  That  the  sovereign  will  of  the  people 
of  a  colony  could  be  set  aside  at  the  caprice  of  a  foreign  gover- 
nor, who  knew  but  little  of  the  truest  interests  of  that  people 
and  seemed  to  care  less,  was  incompatible  with  the  character 
of  this  people.  Here  he  received  one  of  the  earliest  impres- 
sions of  the  evils  of  arbitrary  government, 

A  change  in  his  admiration.  Although  by  cultivation  and 
education  Jefferson  was  an  admirer  of  the  English  government 
he  was  easily  stirred  at  the  sight  of  any  symptom  of  arbitrary 
rule.  As  a  law  student  at  Williamsburg  he  followed  Patrick 
Henry  to  the  old  court-house  where  Henry  was  destined  in  a 
single  speech  to  set  the  Old  Dominion  all  agog  with  excitement. 
Young  Jefferson  standing  in  the  doorway  of  the  crowded 
house  was  thrilled  by  the  voice  of  the  orator  as  he  poured 
forth  torrents  of  eloquence  in  opposition  to  the  Stamp  Act. 
The  march  of  events  was  so  rapid  that  in  a  single  decade  he 
had  passed  from  an  ardent  admirer  of  the  EngHsh  system  to 
its  chief  prosecutor,  who  drew  up  the  indictment  of  George 
III  for  his  crimes  against  his  people. 

Jefferson  as  a  public  servant.  His  pubhc  career  stretched 
over  sixty-one  years,  thirty-nine  of  which  he  actually  spent 
in  office.  His  public  services  comprehended  those  of  legislator 
in  the  House  of  Burgesses,  in  the  Continental  Congress,  in  the 
Virginia  Assembly,  and  in  Congress  under  the  old  confedera- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        55 

tion.  His  work  as  an  administrator  included  two  years  as 
governor  of  Virginia,  Secretary  of  State  one  term,  Vice-Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  one  term,  and  President  of  the  United 
States  two  terms.  His  diplomatic  service  included  that  of  min- 
ister to  France,  and  one  term  as  Secretary  of  State.  He  included 
in  his  public  service  his  labor  for  the  University  of  Virginia. 

A  recital  of  what  he  regarded  as  his  best  service  to  the  coun- 
try, will  indicate  his  estimate  of  hberty  when  enjoyed  by  a 
people. 

His  first  great  service  was  his  part  in  the  drafting  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  The  other  members  of  the 
committee  were,  Benjamin  Frankhn,  John  Adams,  Roger 
Sherman,  and  Robert  R.  Livingston.  As  is  well  known, 
Jefferson's  skill  with  the  pen  recommended  him  at  once  as  the 
man  to  write  the  document.  He  received  a  few  suggestions 
and  consulted  freely  with  Adams  and  Frankhn,  to  whom  he 
submitted  the  draft  before  he  reported  it  to  the  whole  com- 
mittee. 

His  part  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  While  it  is 
admitted  that  Congress  made  some  minor  changes  in  the 
original,  it  is  true  that  its  form  and  substance  are  largely 
Jefferson's.  If  the  instrument  is  read  with  the  view  of  deter- 
mining its  dominant  note,  it  is  easy  to  detect  his  estimate  of 
Hberty.  He  declares  that  man  is  endowed  with  certain 
rights  which  can  not  be  taken  from  him.  He  enumerates 
these  rights  as  life,  liberty,  and  pursuit  of  happiness.  Here  we 
have  personal  liberty,  civil  and  political  liberty,  and  economic 
Hberty.  He  asserts  these  to  be  the  end  of  existence  and  their 
security  the  purpose  of  government.  And  as  the  end  is 
superior  to  the  means,  he  announces  that  governments  must 
subserve  these  ends,  otherwise  they  must  be  altered,  or 
abolished  for  such  as  will  satisfy  the  ends.  He  thus  places 
the  liberties  of  the  people  above  the  privileges  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  boldly  declares  that  the  right  to  govern  must  come 
from  the  consent  of  the  governed.     He  asserted  that  while 


56  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

governments  should  not  be  changed  for  light  and  transient 
causes,  yet  all  history  showed  that  people  suffer  evils  as  long 
as  they  are  sufferable  rather  than  to  right  them.  Herein  Hes 
the  key  to  the  secret  of  his  poHtical  theory  which  was  soon  to 
take  such  strong  hold  upon  the  new  repubhc. 

Promulgation  in  statutory  enactments.  His  will  be  a  busy 
hfe  in  the  interest  of  what  he  calls  the  Uberties  of  his  people. 
He  said  he  proposed  the  disestablishment  of  the  Church  in  the 
interest  of  religious  freedom.  His  efforts  to  secure  this  con- 
summation ran  through  a  series  of  years  from  1776  to  1785. 
To  Jefferson  Virginia  owes  the  enactment  of  very  important 
measures  in  the  establishment  of  specihc  laws  securing  the 
liberties  of  the  citizen,  namely: 

1.  The  destruction  of  the  entailed  estate. 

2.  The  prohibition  of  the  importation  of  slaves. 

3.  The  abolition  of  the  system  of  primogeniture. 

4.  The  establishment  of  the  rights  of  expatriation. 

5.  The  apportionment  of  crimes  and  their  punishment  in  accordance 
with  a  more  enhghtened  humanity. 

6.  The  disestabUshment  of  the  Church,  and  the  recognition  of  freedom 
in  religious  worship. 

7.  The  establishment  of  free  Enghsh  schools. 

Disestablishment.  With  the  army  in  the  field  striking  for 
political  liberty  it  was  thought  an  opportune  time  to  prune  the 
tree  growing  on  the  homestead.  The  first  branch  to  which  the 
knife  was  laid  was  the  Church  estabHshment.  Jefferson  in- 
sisted that  it  was  unfair  to  compel  dissenters  to  support  any 
particular  church,  but  that  they  should  be  left  to  assist  the 
church  of  their  choice.  He  also  argued  that  any  church  would 
be  profited  by  voluntary  support.  This  principle  was  finally 
enacted  into  law  in  1779.  Entire  religious  freedom  was  accom- 
plished in  his  State  in  1785.  This  consummation  was  regarded 
by  him  as  one  of  the  greatest  achievements  of  his  hfe. 

Laws  of  descent.  Kindred  to  this  was  the  abohtion  of 
restrictive  land  laws  prevalent  in  England  which  had  been 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        57 

imported  from  the  parent  country.  By  this  system  the  estates 
could  not  be  aUenated  from  the  possessor  to  one  not  related  to 
the  possessor  as  an  heir.  This  was  in  the  interest  of  the 
landed  aristocracy.  It  was  the  method  by  which  such  aris- 
tocracy was  continued,  in  securing  the  integrity  of  the  great 
estates  by  forbidding  their  division.  Another  regulation  by 
law  in  the  interest  of  the  aristocracy  was  that  called  primo- 
geniture. This  undemocratic  scheme  caused  all  the  estate  of 
the  ancestor  to  pass  to  the  oldest  son  to  the  exclusion  of  other 
sons  and  all  daughters.  This  was  so  averse  to  Jefferson's  way 
of  thinking  that  he  early  began  his  assaults  upon  it.  While 
a  hereditary  monarchy  might  excuse  it,  he  was  sure  it  was 
entirely  indefensible  in  America.  His  nature  resented  any 
law  wliich  was  made  in  the  interest  of  the  few  to  the  detriment 
of  the  many.  His  efforts  resulted  in  the  adoption  of  the  equal 
distribution  system,  which  is  now  universal  in  the  States,  and 
has  proved  its  utihty. 

It  was  but  natural  that  such  a  nature  as  his  would  be 
aroused  by  the  rigidity  of  the  criminal  code  of  his  State,  and 
the  various  restrictions  upon  the  citizens  in  their  coming  and 
going  to  and  from  the  State.  His  attention  was  soon  success- 
fully directed  to  ameliorating  these  inequahties,  all  in  the 
interest  of  the  Uberties  of  the  many,  rather  than  the  privileges 
of  the  few. 

Jefferson  as  a  slave-holder.  It  is  asserted  that  these  evi- 
dences of  his  advocacy  of  liberty  are  incompatible  with  his  life 
as  a  slave-holder.  It  might  appear  so  until  his  attitude  toward 
both  the  slave  and  the  slave  institution  is  understood.  His 
treatment  of  slaves  was  exemplary.  No  cruelty  was  tolerated 
upon  his  premises.  No  separation  of  famiHes,  no  unjust 
punishment,  no  conveyance  of  aged  negroes  too  old  to  be  use- 
ful. 

In  reference  to  his  attitude  toward  slavery  as  an  institution, 
his  views  were  openly  expressed  in  opposition  to  its  contin- 
uance.    Jefferson's  original  draft  of  the  Declaration  of  In- 


58  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

dependence  contained  a  severe  indictment  against  the  Crown 
for  fastening  the  system  of  slavery  upon  the  unwiHing  colonies. 
This  was  later  stricken  out  in  deference  to  certain  friends  of 
the  institution  in  the  South.  Two  years  later  he  secured  the 
enactment  of  a  law  in  Virginia  forbidding  the  further  importa- 
tion of  slaves  into  the  State.  The  Ordinance  of  1784,  the 
precursor  of  the  more  famous  Ordinance  of  1787,  was  written 
by  Jefferson.  It  provided  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
Northwest  Territory  after  the  year  1800.  This  wish  of  Jeffer- 
son's was  defeated  by  but  one  vote.  It  evidently  prevented  a 
consummation  much  desired  by  him  as  evidenced  by  a  striking 
remark  of  his  that  "we  must  wait  with  patience  the  workings 
of  an  over-ruling  Providence  and  hope  that  it  is  preparing 
the  deliverance  of  these  our  suffering  brethren.  When  the 
measure  of  their  tears  shall  be  full,  when  their  groans  shall 
have  involved  heaven  itself  in  darkness,  doubtless  a  God  of 
justice  will  awaken  to  their  distress."  In  this  connection  that 
oft-quoted  expression  of  his,  found  in  his  Notes  on  Virginia,  will 
be  recalled,  in  which  he  said,  "  I  tremble  for  my  country  when 
I  reflect  that  God  is  just,  and  that  his  justice  cannot  forever 
sleep."  He  here  asserted  that  the  abohtion  of  slavery  was 
possible,  and  every  plan  should  be  advocated,  and  every  ex- 
periment made,  which  would  assist  in  its  ultimate  accomplish- 
ment. His  views  upon  slavery  were  ever  those  of  a  man  whose 
dominant  passion  was  liberty.  This  passion  led  him  at  times 
to  utter  sentiments  at  war  with  reason.  One  of  the  most 
outspoken  heresies  he  voiced  was  his  reference  to  the  Shays 
rebellion  in  Massachusetts  in  1787.  Far  from  criticizing  it,  he 
exclaimed,  "  God  forbid  that  we  should  be  twenty  years  with- 
out a  rebellion.  .  .  .  The  tree  of  hberty  must  be  refreshed 
from  time  to  time  with  the  blood  of  patriots  and  tyrants." 
Such  utterances  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  any  other  basis 
than  that  of  fears  for  the  liberties  of  his  people. 

Influence   of  France   upon  his   theory.     His  residence  in 
France  was  destined  to  stimulate  this  passion.     His  admira- 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IX  THE  UXITED   STATES        59 

tion  for  Lafayette  personally,  and  Ms  cause  politically,  as 
well  as  his  well  known  sentiments  of  democracy,  induced  the 
French  Democrats  to  seek  his  counsel  and  advice.  He  was 
wholly  in  sympathy  with  the  claims  of  the  agitators  for  a 
government  of  the  people  in  France.  Wliile  he  was  in  this 
atmosphere  the  Federal  Convention  completed  its  work  in  the 
framing  of  the  Constitution.  It  was  but  natural  that  the 
great  Democrat  would  be  dissatisfied  with  the  results.  He 
defined  his  objections  in  a  letter  to  Madison,  the  father  of  the 
Constitution.  All  his  objections  are  negative.  Not  what  the 
Constitution  provided,  but  rather  what  it  failed  to  provide, 
gave  rise  to  his  objection.  Upon  this  basis  is  explained  his 
contention  for  the  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution. 
His  fear  of  the  tendency  of  authority  to  exceed  its  rightful 
hmits  induced  his  claim  for  expressed  power  only,  to  the 
exclusion  of  impHed  power  in  the  Constitution,  and  gave  a 
foundation  for  a  political  theory  and  policy. 

Rational  explanation  of  his  theory.  In  the  difference  of 
interpretation  is  found  the  rational  basis  for  the  two  parties 
in  the  government.  Tersely  expressed  it  is  the  contention 
between  the  adherents  of  central  government  on  the  one  side 
and  those  of  local  self-government  on  the  other.  The  one 
drifts  toward  too  large  exercise  of  authority  on  the  one  side, 
while  the  other  leans  toward  too  much  hberty  on  the  other 
side.  The  apostle  of  liberty  would  naturally  fret  under  every 
extension  of  authority.  Party  difference  took  form  in  Wash- 
ington's administration.  The  occasion  was  the  inauguration 
of  the  financial  scheme  of  Hamilton.  Jefferson's  keen  eye 
easily  discerned  the  centralizing  tendencies  of  the  great 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  His  suspicions  were  reinforced 
by  subsequent  events,  and  party  spirit  was  a  rational  outcome. 
From  an  active  antagonism  to  Hamilton's  policy  to  reluctant 
support  of  Washington  was  but  a  step.  This  position  reached, 
it  might  have  been  expected  that  Washington's  position  of 
neutrality  would  be  a  grave  disappointment  to  Jefferson. 


6o  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Jefferson  and  Washington.  While  open  rupture  was  not 
at  once  reached,  it  amounted  to  that  when  the  President  urged 
suppression  of  the  "  Self-created  Societies."  Jefferson  was 
certain  he  saw  in  this  recommendation  the  strong  hand  of 
oppression,  the  enemy  of  the  freedom  of  speech,  of  the  press, 
and  the  right  of  assembly.  It  was  a  question  whether  his 
admiration  for,  and  his  confidence  in,  his  chief  were  sufficient 
to  prevent  an  open  rupture.  The  strained  relations  were  not 
relieved  by  the  signing  of  Jay's  treaty  which  was  interpreted 
by  Jefferson  as  a  defeat  for  the  Democratic  elements  of 
France. 

Progress  of  partizan  feeling.  By  the  close  of  the  second 
administration,  party  spirit  was  well  defined,  between  adher- 
ents of  hberty  on  the  one  side  and  authority  on  the  other. 
While  these  two  terms  were  never  discussed  as  distinct  issues, 
their  contention  served  as  the  rational  basis  for  party  dispute 
upon  whatever  issue  came  up  for  discussion.  If  there  was 
opposition  to  the  assumption  of  the  State  debt,  it  arose  from 
the  fear  that  the  rights  of  the  State  were  in  jeopardy.  If  there 
was  opposition  to  the  establishment  of  a  National  Bank,  it 
emanated  from  a  like  fear  that  it  would  become  an  engine  of 
despotic  power  in  the  hands  of  government  officials.  If  there 
was  a  French  party  in  the  country,  it  had  its  rise  in  sympathy 
for  liberty's  contention  with  its  enemy  in  a  foreign  country. 
If  a  contention  arose  over  the  suppression  of  the  Democratic 
societies,  their  defenders  took  a  position  not  for  the  admira- 
tion of  the  leaders,  but  in  the  interest  of  free  speech  and  the 
right  of  assembly.  If  the  keenest  resentment  was  awakened 
by  the  enactment  of  the  restrictive  measures,  such  as  the 
Alien  and  Sedition  Laws,  it  arose  not  because  such  measures 
were  wholly  unwarranted,  but  because  free  speech  and  per- 
sonal liberty  were  apt  to  suffer  from  them. 

Jefferson  in  power  against  Jefferson  out  of  power.  The 
student  of  the  Jefferson  theory,  as  represented  in  Jefferson's 
administration  from  1801  to  1809,  faces  a  conflict  between 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES        6i 

theory  and  practise.  The  course  of  his  administration  tended 
away  from  Hberty  to  authority;  away  from  the  Federal  to  the 
national  theory  of  government.  ]Much  he  did  was  forced  upon 
him  by  the  logic  of  events.  He  wisely  permitted  it  to  deter- 
mine his  course,  although  it  cost  him  the  open  charge  of  in- 
consistency. While  his  theory  sufifered  sorely  at  his  own 
hands,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  changed  his  mind 
upon  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  government.  He  still  beheved 
that  the  best  government  made  the  least  show  of  authority. 
In  referring  to  his  intention  to  appoint  his  political  friends  to 
office,  he  said,  "  We  do  not  mean  to  leave  arms  in  the  hands 
of  our  active  enemies,  yet  I  hope  our  wisdom  will  grow  with 
our  power,  and  teach  us  that  the  less  we  use  our  power,  the 
greater  it  will  be."  Yet  when  events  which  he  could  not  easily 
control  argued  that  he  should  use  the  power,  he  did  so  with 
the  alertness  of  a  dictator. 

Was  this  an  abandonment  of  his  theory?  At  the  very  time 
he  was  enlarging  the  powers  of  the  general  government,  he 
was  warning  the  people  of  its  dangers.  "What  has  destroyed 
the  Hberty  and  the  rights  of  man  in  every  government  which 
has  ever  existed  under  the  sun? "  he  inquired.  "The  general- 
izing and  concentrating  all  cares  and  powers  into  one  body," 
was  his  answer.  He  further  declared,  "It  is  not  by  the  con- 
solidation or  concentration  of  powers,  but  by  their  distribu- 
tion that  good  government  is  effected."  He  had  implicit 
faith  in  the  wisdom  of  the  many.  He  beheved  there  was 
safety  in  the  counsel  of  the  multitude.  In  his  first  inaugural 
address  he  said,  "Absolute  acquiescence  in  the  decisions  of  the 
majority  is  the  vital  principle  of  the  repubhc,  from  which 
there  is  no  appeal  except  through  force,  the  vital  principle  and 
immediate  parent  of  despotism."  That  the  people  might  be 
frequently  heard  he  favored  short  terms  of  office,  and  was  ever 
an  opponent  of  hfe  tenure  even  in  the  Judiciary.  He  believed 
it  to  be  a  breeder  of  grave  evils  to  the  people.  He  expressed 
grave  fears  that  the  want  of  a  Hmit  to  the  number  of  times  a 


62  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

President  might  succeed  himself,  might  favor  the  hfe  tenure 
in  that  office.  He  recommended  an  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution providing  for  but  one  term  of  seven  years. 

State  University  of  Virginia.  It  is  not  difficult  to  cite  cases 
which  ignore  these  political  opinions.  They  are  numerous  in 
his  writings  and  doings.  Yet  his  entire  career  was  a  com- 
mentary upon  the  value  of  freedom  to  a  people.  His  proud- 
est title  was  "  father  of  the  State  University  of  Virginia." 
Its  planting  and  its  early  growth  were  due  to  his  efforts.  He 
selected  for  its  motto,  "And  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the 
truth  shall  make  you  free."  Speaking  of  the  value  of  an 
education  he  said,  "  I  have  sworn  upon  the  altar  of  God  eternal 
hostility  against  every  form  of  tyranny  over  the  mind  of  man." 
Thus  the  passion  of  freedom  or  liberty  is  supreme  in  his  motive 
in  the  service  for  an  educational  system  for  his  State. 

Intelligibility  of  his  theory.  It  is  only  when  his  estimate 
of  the  value  to  a  people  of  Kberty  in  government  is  understood 
that  Jefferson's  theory  is  intelligible.  That  will  enable  his 
countrymen  to  understand  his  instructions  to  his  family 
relative  to  his  epitaph.  In  it  can  be  read  the  liberty  which 
comes  from  the  government  which  is  built  upon  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence;  which  recognizes  that  religious  liberty 
secured  by  the  statutes  of  Virginia;  and  that  liberty,  the  great- 
est of  all,  which  is  assured  by  a  wise  system  of  education. 
Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  Jefferson,  he  must  be  recognized 
as  the  champion  of  the  rights  of  the  people  as  against  the 
privileges  of  the  few.  To  this  issue  he  addressed  himself. 
He  disliked  titles  with  a  conviction  that  approached  hatred. 
He  expressed  the  hope  that  all  terms  of  discrimination  would 
disappear  from  us.  His  effort  in  the  abolition  of  entailed 
estates  and  primogeniture  made  him  the  special  target  for 
abuse  at  the  hands  of  the  aristocracy.  However,  his  loss  of 
that  support  was  compensated  by  the  gain  of  the  vastly 
larger  element  which  had  come  into  their  rights  by  virtue 
of  his  activity.     In  like  manner,  while  he  lost  the  support 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES        63 

of  the  Church  he  won  that  of  the  dissenter,  which  was  con- 
siderable. 

His  own  classification  of  the  race.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
asserted  that  "]\Ien  are  divided  into  two  parties  by  their 
constitutions,  those  who  fear  and  distrust  the  people  and  wish 
to  draw  all  power  from  them  into  the  hands  of  a  higher  class, 
and  second  those  who  identify  themselves  with  the  people, 
have  confidence  in  them,  cherish  and  consider  them  as  the  most 
honest  and  safe  although  not  the  most  wase  depository  of  the 
pubhc  interest."  It  was  to  the  latter  class  that  he  desired  to 
belong,  and  his  career  shows  that  his  desires  were  satisfied. 
His  fife  was  spent  on  behalf  of  the  people  in  whom  he  had 
implicit  faith.  He  beheved  he  had  rendered  his  best  service 
to  them  when  he  had  secured  to  them  the  fullest  enjoyment 
of  the  blessings  of  Hberty.  If  Jefferson  was  one  of  the 
greatest  party  leaders,  and  many  think  him  the  greatest  in  our 
history,  that  leadership  was  due  to  the  value  he  placed  upon 
liberty,  and  to  his  efforts  expended  to  secure  its  blessings  to 
the  people,  without  regard  to  rank  or  distinction. 


CHAPTER   IV 

ALEXANDER  HAMILTON,  THE  REPRESENTATIVE  OF  POWER 

IN  GOVERNMENT 

The  leadership  of  Hamilton.  In  a  Republic,  leadership 
of  the  masses  is  not  synonymous  with  statesmanship.  Politi- 
cal following  is  not  essentially  a  result  of  superior  talents.  Not 
infrequently  the  reverse  is  true;  however,  in  the  latter  case 
the  leadership  is  spasmodic.  Popularity  partakes  of  the  quali- 
ties of  the  heart,  rather  than  of  the  head.  It  is  stimulated  by 
the  unselfish  service  for  man.  Herein  lies  the  ground  where 
partizan  leadership  may  dangerously  approach  demagogy. 
Alexander  Hamilton  was  by  nature  disqualified  for  that  sort 
of  leadership  common  in  repubhcs  which  arouses  the  enthu- 
siasm of  the  masses.  His  were  the  arts  of  argumentation 
rather  than  of  emotion.  His  persuasiveness  was  that  of  the 
logician,  not  of  the  rhetorician.  His  statement  was  as  color- 
less as  the  conclusions  of  the  syllogism.  His  language  was  as 
free  of  ambiguity  as  his  mind  was  of  sophistry.  There  was  no 
circumlocution  in  his  methods.  He  went  straight  to  the  heart 
of  the  issue  with  the  rapidity  of  the  lightning's  flash,  and  the 
cleavage  was  not  less  decisive.  His  logic  neither  consulted 
the  interest  of  colleague,  nor  spared  the  feeling  of  opponent. 
Such  talents  are  occasion  for  the  keenest  attachments  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  intensest  hatreds  on  the  other.  His  intimate 
friends  were  not  satisfied  with  the  utmost  praise,  as  his  enemies 
were  not  with  the  fullest  censure.  His  attributes  were  such 
as  appealed  to  the  aristocratic,  rather  than  to  the  democratic, 

64 


■■ 

■ 

^^HlHlUr 

WM 

1 

mWm^^^^^^fe^^^^-  ^ 

1 

^^9nl 

l^s 

^^^^^^^H^H^i«,.^.^< 

^^H 

H 

^^^^^^^»l^l^^  ~%^ 

^■1 

B^^^f  ..<  j 

^MMPi^  fli 

||||m 

■Hi 

1 

1 

Alexander  Hamilton 


65 


66  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

elements,  in  his  circle  of  influence.  This  won  for  him  the 
odium  of  a  respecter  of  persons;  one  who  aspired  to  win 
the  favor  of  the  wealthy  and  weU-born  and  cared  little  for  the 
good  opinion  of  the  masses  of  mankind.  On  the  other  hand, 
this  conviction  won  for  him  the  opposition  of  the  advocates 
of  extreme  democracy,  chief  of  whom  was  Thomas  Jefferson. 

In  contrast  with  Jefferson.  As  liberty  was  the  key  to  Jeffer- 
son's political  philosophy,  so  power  or  authority  was  the  key  to 
Hamilton's.  His  was  the  instinct  of  order,  and  his  brief  life 
is  the  best  commentary  upon  its  importance  to  man.  He  did 
not  depreciate  the  value  of  liberty,  in  fact,  he  regarded  it  as 
the  end  of  government;  but  he  felt  it  was  enjoyed  only  when 
regulated  in  government.  Liberty  without  government  was 
to  him  unthinkable.  Liberty  unregulated  by  authority  was 
anarchy,  the  greatest  enemy  to  mankind.  His  remedy  for  this 
nightmare  was  government.  The  greater  the  dangers  from 
the  former,  the  stronger  the  needs  of  the  latter. 

Source  of  Hamilton's  philosophy.  Tliis  conviction  was  due 
partly  to  his  mental  organization,  and  partly  to  the  times  in 
which  he  lived  and  the  manner  of  his  life.  Born  in  the  Island 
of  Nevis,  one  of  the  West  Indies,  in  1757,  he  grew  to  manhood 
in  the  most  stirring  times  ending  in  one  of  the  great  revolutions 
of  the  world.  His  poverty  of  birth  left  him  to  meet  and  con- 
quer the  world  as  he  found  it.  After  a  short  apprenticeship 
as  a  clerk  he  landed  on  the  continent  at  Boston,  then  wended 
his  way  to  New  York,  the  place  of  his  future  activities.  His 
ambition  to  achieve  was  early  revealed  in  a  note  to  his  boy- 
hood friend,  in  which  he  said:  "  I  contemn  the  grovehng  con- 
dition of  a  clerk  to  which  my  fortune  condemns  me,  and  would 
willingly  risk  my  life,  but  not  my  character,  to  exalt  my 
station.  .  .  .  I  shall  conclude  by  saying  I  wish  there  was  a  war." 
One  of  the  earhest  as  well  as  latest  objects  of  his  ambition  was 
the  career  of  a  successful  soldier. 

His  introduction  to  the  public.  His  precocity  had  attracted 
the  attention  of  men  of  influence  and  he  was  induced  to  enter 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IX  THE   UXITED   STATES        67 

college.  He  first  applied  to  Princeton.  His  originality  is 
reflected  by  his  insistence  upon  the  privilege  to  enter  for  the 
purpose  of  pursuing  only  the  studies  which  he  named.  Unable 
to  secure  this  concession,  he  entered  Columbia,  then  King's 
College.  Here,  as  ever  after,  he  busied  himself  with  issues 
of  pubhc  concern,  rather  than  lessons  in  a  text-book.  His 
combative  turn  took  him  where  controversy  was  heard.  He 
was  continually  turning  over  in  his  mind  the  questions  of  the 
hour  and  was  ready  to  express  an  opinion  when  opportunity 
offered.  At  the  time  of  the  enactment  of  the  Boston  Port 
Bill  he  was  a  student.  This  striphng,  a  college  boy  of  seven- 
teen, displayed  such  talent  as  gave  promise  of  the  most  gifted 
and  versatile  political  genius  that  had  yet  appeared  in  the 
colonies. 

Early  recognition.  As  this  was  the  age  of  pamphleteers, 
it  gave  him  free  rein  in  a  field  to  which  his  talents  were  pecu- 
liarly adapted.  The  cause  of  the  Tories  was  argued  in  this 
manner.  In  reply  to  their  arguments,  Hamilton  reviewed  and 
vindicated  the  doings  of  the  colonies.  The  sagacity  with 
which  this  was  done,  the  force  of  reasoning,  the  grasp  of  the 
situation,  the  famiharity  with  the  principles  of  government 
and  especially  with  the  English  constitution,  were  such  as 
would  do  honor  to  any  man  of  any  country.  The  repHes  were 
attributed  to  John  Jay,  and  when  it  was  learned  that  they  came 
from  the  pen  of  the  youthful  college  boy  of  seventeen,  it  was 
thought  incredible. 

His  remarkable  career  assured.  Thus  at  the  early  age  of 
seventeen  he  was  versed  in  constitutional  history.  At  nine- 
teen he  signalized  himself  as  captain  of  artillery.  At  twenty 
he  was  made  chief  aid  to  Washington,  when  was  begun  that 
singular  attachment  which  induced  the  great  Father  of  his 
Country  to  lean  more  heavily  upon  Hamilton  for  counsel 
than  upon  any  other  American.  At  twenty-five  he  entered 
Congress;  at  twenty-nine  he  became  a  member  of  the  New 
York  legislature;  at  thirty  he  was  a  member  of  the  Federal 


68  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Convention.  At  thirty-one  he  wrote  his  part  of  the  Federal- 
ist, the  strongest  presentation  of  the  principles  of  constructive 
government  extant,  and  performed  the  feat  of  breaking  down  a 
great  majority  against  the  Constitution  in  the  New  York  con- 
vention which  did  not  adjourn  until  it  had  ratified  the  instru- 
ment against  which  the  majority  was  at  first  committed.  At 
thirty-two  he  was  called  to  the  head  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment where  his  crowning  work  was  accomplished.  At  the  age 
of  forty-one  on  the  demand  of  Washington  he  re-organized  the 
armies  of  the  government  and  the  next  year,  upon  the  death  of 
Washington,  he  was  made  first  in  command.  At  the  age  of 
forty-seven  he  fell  at  the  hand  of  the  duelist. 

The  master-builder.  While  the  fulness  of  manhood  was 
reached  before  the  age  of  his  majority,  the  brilliancy  of  his 
career  was  ecHpsed  by  a  premature  death.  The  span  of  his 
public  career  would  measure  thirty  years  —  from  1774  to  1804. 
Twenty-one  of  these  years  were  spent  in  the  actual  service  of 
the  government  at  the  time  when  the  work  of  both  destroying 
the  old  and  building  the  new  was  done.  Hamilton  was 
stronger  in  building  than  in  destroying.  To  him  more  than 
to  any  other  American  is  due  the  title  of  master-builder.  From 
the  ruins  of  war  and  the  enfeebled  attempts  at  confederation, 
he  gathered  the  materials  out  of  which  he  directed  the  rearing 
of  our  present  system  of  government.  The  one  dominant  note 
in  his  philosophy  was  power.  In  his  vocabulary  are  constantly 
occurring  the  words,  power,  authority,  influence,  energy, 
strength,  vigor,  administration,  etc.  If  we  seek  the  explana- 
tion outside  of  his  mental  organization  it  will  be  found  in  his 
public  experience.  Of  the  numerous  evils  entailed  upon  the 
colonies  by  the  unfortunate  quarrel  with  the  parent  country, 
war  itself  was  scarcely  more  detrimental  than  the  lack  of 
government  to  assist  in  the  ends  for  which  the  war  was  begun. 
The  army  in  the  field  suffered  most  because  of  the  govern- 
ment's utter  want  of  authority  to  secure  suppHes  from  the 
States.     It  was  the  case  of  depending  upon  the  voluntary 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES        69 

contributions  of  separate  colonies,  with  no  power  to  enforce 
requisitions. 

Deplorable  condition  of  the  army.  Under  these  conditions, 
let  Washington  depict  the  situation  at  a  time  when  Hamilton 
was  sharing  the  suffering: ''  Without  arrogance  or  the  smallest 
deviation  from  truth,  it  may  be  said  that  no  history  now 
extant  can  furnish  an  instance  of  an  army's  suffering  such 
uncommon  hardships  as  ours  has  done  and  bearing  them  with 
the  same  patience  and  fortitude."  To  see  men  without 
clothes  to  cover  their  nakedness,  without  blankets  to  lie  upon, 
without  shoes  (for  the  want  of  which  their  marches  might  be 
traced  by  the  blood  from  their  feet),  and  almost  as  often 
without  provisions  as  with  them,  marching  through  the  frost' 
and  snow,  and  at  Christmas  taking  up  their  quarters  within 
a  day's  march  of  the  enemy,  without  a  house  or  a  hut  to  cover 
them,  —  is  to  witness  the  suffering  at  Valley  Forge.  It  was 
due  to  the  lack  of  central  authority  and  the  excess  of  power  in 
the  individual  States.  Near  a  decade  of  war  was  a  rare  school- 
ing on  this  specific  point.  Hamilton  was  instant  in  urging 
a  stronger  government. 

His  part  in  relieving  the  situation.  When  in  1782  he  en- 
tered Congress  he  urged  measures  which  should  give  to  that 
body  necessary  power.  As  early  as  1780  he  wrote  Duane  a 
letter  in  which  he  analyzed  the  defects  of  the  system,  outlined 
a  Federal  constitution  and  urged  a  convention  for  that  pur- 
pose. To  him,  perhaps,  more  than  to  any  one  else  was  due 
the  calling  of  the  Annapolis  convention,  of  which  he  was  a 
member.  It  was  Hamilton  in  this  convention  that  reported 
in  favor  of  calling  a  convention  for  the  purpose  of  revising  the 
Articles  of  Confederation.  For  at  least  six  years  he  had  upon 
every  occasion  kept  before  the  people  the  weaknesses  of  the 
confederation.  This  he  had  done  in  legislative  halls,  in  public 
assemblies,  in  private  letters  and  in  conversations,  until  the 
defects,  as  he  viewed  them,  were  common  knowledge.  The 
popular  party  in  his  own  State  was  against  him.     However,  he 


70  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

succeeded  in  inducing  his  State  to  send  delegates  to  the  Fed- 
eral convention,  of  which  he  was  one;  Lansing  and  Yates 
being  the  other  two.  In  this  convention  Hamilton  was  unfortu- 
nate; he  was  compelled  to  see  his  State  go  against  him 
upon  almost  every  question,  as  his  two  recalcitrant  colleagues 
outvoted  him.  For  this  unfortunate  situation  his  influence 
was  not  great.  On  June  i8th  he  occupied  the  day  in  the 
presentation  of  his  views,  and  soon  after  temporarily  left  the 
convention. 

His  plan  of  government.  At  the  close  of  his  exhaustive 
speech  he  submitted  his  plan  of  government.  It  provided 
for  the  three  departments  of  government;  executive,  legislative 
and  judicial.  The  legislative  was  to  consist  of  two  houses. 
The  people  were  to  elect  the  members  of  the  House  and  they 
were  to  select  a  body  of  electors  who  were  to  choose  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Senate.  The  Executive  was  to  be  chosen  in  a  man- 
ner similar  to  the  election  of  members  of  the  Senate.  Both 
the  Executive  and  the  senators  were  to  hold  office  during  good 
behavior.  His  plan  provided  for  the  appointment  of  the 
executives  of  the  various  States  by  the  general  government. 
His  theory  of  government  rested  upon  specific  principles: 

(i)  A  healthful  support  of  the  government. 

(2 )  The  recognition  of  the  need  of  the  government. 

(3 )  The  ever-present  sense  of  obligation  to  the  government. 

(4)  Reliance  upon  force  to  compel  obedience. 

(5)  The  influence  which  goes  with  position. 

He  had  argued  in  his  exhaustive  speech  that  in  our  dual 
sovereignties  all  these  principles  were  with  the  State  govern-  • 
ments  but  generally  absent  from  the  national  government. 
This  was  proof  of  the  weakness  and  distraction  of  the  con- 
federation. To  strengthen  it,  he  desired  to  curtail  the  powers 
of  the  States  and  at  the  same  time  to  augment  the  power  of 
the  confederation. 

Hamilton  in  the  Federal  convention  during  the  closing  days. 
After  an  absence  from  the  convention  for  a  time,  he  returned 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        71 

and  labored  assiduously  for  the  consummation  of  its  work. 
His  two  colleagues  had  withdrawn  in  ill  humor  and  refused 
further  to  participate.  Hamilton  gave  the  vote  of  the  Empire 
State  for  the  Constitution.  The  opponents  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, headed  by  Governor  Chnton,  were  making  ready  at 
home  to  prevent  a  ratification  of  the  work  of  the  convention. 
They  promised  well  of  success.  It  was  well  known  that  a 
majority  of  the  people  of  New  York  was  opposed  to  the  Con- 
stitution. It  was  somewhat  feared  that  this  State  was  a  sort 
of  barometer;  as  it  went,  so  likely  would  go  the  majority. 

His  part  in  creating  a  favorable  public  sentiment  in  U.  S. 
At  this  juncture  the  rare  sagacity  of  Hamilton  conceived  the 
idea  of  the  publication  in  the  press  of  the  articles  which  are 
now  known  as  the  FederaHst.  There  are  eighty-five  of  them, 
fifty-one  of  which  were  written  by  Hamilton.  The  publica- 
tion commenced  soon  after  the  convention  had  completed 
its  work  and  continued  until  late  in  the  following  spring.  In 
these  essays  the  entire  range  of  government  is  swept.  He 
ransacked  the  authorities,  and  displayed  the  most  remarkable 
familiarity  with  the  governmental  systems  of  both  ancient 
and  modern  times.  No  man  could  better  apply  his  informa- 
tion to  the  issue  at  hand.  His  first  argument  was  in  proof  of 
the  value  of  the  proposed  Union.  In  this  he  held  up  in  merci- 
less logic  the  pitiable  weakness  of  the  old  system,  to  prove 
its  ineffectiveness  to  effect  or  preserve  the  Union.  In  the 
examination  he  urged  the  necessity  of  an  energetic  govern- 
ment. 

Hamiltonian  maxims.  He  announced  what  he  denominated 
maxims  of  government.  Throughout  his  writings  are  found 
such  expressions  as  the  following: 

Every  power  ought  to  be  in  proportion  to  its  object. 

There  is  no  effect  without  a  corresponding  cause. 

The  means  must  be  in  proportion  to  the  end  proposed. 

There  should  be  no  limitation  of  a  power  destined  to  effect 
a  purpose  in  itself  without  limitation. 


72  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

The  greater  the  power  is,  the  shorter  should  be  its  duration. 

The  peace  of  the  whole  should  not  be  left  to  a  part. 

If  the  end  is  clearly  defined  the  means  must  be  employed 
to  reach  it. 

This  last  maxim  is  the  key  to  his  interpretation  of  power,  and 
stands  as  the  foundation  for  the  employment  of  implied  powers 
in  the  Constitution,  in  the  business  of  making  and  interpreting 
laws.  The  same  principle  was  elaborated  by  Chief  Justice 
Marshall  in  his  various  decisions  involving  that  principle. 

His  dissatisfaction  with  the  work  of  the  Federal  Conven- 
tion. It  is  well  understood  that  Hamilton  was  dissatisfied 
with  the  Constitution  as  it  came  from  the  convention.  It 
gave  too  httle  power  to  the  national  government  and  too 
much  to  the  States.  It  was  declared  by  him  to  have  sacri- 
ficed energy  for  the  sake  of  liberty.  He  feared  that  confusion 
would  displace  order.  It  throws  light  upon  that  prodigy  from 
another  source.  He  was  thoroughly  convinced  that  a  crisis 
had  been  reached  in  the  life  of  the  people.  He  declared  that 
State  jealousy  had  become  so  strong  that  there  was  httle  hope 
of  the  permanency  of  the  repubhc  if  the  work  of  the  Federal 
Convention  was  rejected. 

Source  of  this  dissatisfaction.  Far  from  being  satisfied 
with  it,  he  asserted  it  to  be  only  the  best  the  conditions  would 
permit.  His  ambition  as  well  as  his  determination  was  to  see 
the  loose  confederation  of  States  under  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation, superseded  by  a  Union.  His  fears  for  the  weakness 
of  the  former  led  him  to  advocate  with  vigor  the  latter.  While 
the  Constitution  was  not  centralizing  as  he  would  have  it,  he 
declared  it  an  improvement  over  the  old  plan;  hence  his 
herculean  efforts  to  secure  favorable  action  on  the  part  of  his 
own  State.  He  demonstrated  that  the  sovereignty  of  the 
State  made  nugatory  the  power  of  the  nation.  He  also 
showed  that  government,  to  be  effective,  must  operate  upon 
the  individual,  not  upon  the  State  as  under  the  old  regime. 
In  other  words,   the  sanction  must  come  from   "  We,   the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        73 

People,"  not,  "'  We,  the  States."  He  demonstrated  the  cause 
of  the  national  humiliation,  in  the  inability  to  maintain  the 
national  credit,  to  be  the  lack  of  power  of  the  general  govern- 
ment over  questions  of  taxation,  commerce,  etc.  In  almost 
every  Hne  of  his  various  arguments  appear  the  demand  for  a 
transfer  of  power  from  the  States  to  the  general  government. 
And  in  consequence  he  was  charged  with  desiring  to  ehminate 
the  States  wholly. 

Indictment  of  the  old  regime.  The  cardinal  principle  with 
him  was  effective  administration  of  an  energetic  government. 
He  declared  it  impossible  under  the  confederation. 

We  may  indeed  with  propriety,  he  wrote,  be  said  to  have  reached 
almost  the  last  stage  of  national  humiliation.  There  is  scarcely  anything 
that  can  wound  the  pride  or  degrade  the  character  of  an  independent 
nation,  which  we  do  not  experience.  Are  there  engagements  to  the  per- 
formance of  which  we  are  held  by  every  tie  respectable  among  men? 
These  are  the  subjects  of  constant  and  unblushing  violation.  Do  we 
owe  debts  to  foreigners,  and  to  our  own  citizens,  contracted  in  a  time  of 
immediate  peril,  for  the  preservation  of  our  political  existence?  These 
remain  without  any  proper  or  satisfactory  provision  for  their  discharge. 
Have  we  valuable  territories  and  important  posts  in  the  possession  of  a 
foreign  power,  which,  by  express  stipulations,  ought  long  since  to  have 
been  surrendered?  These  are  stUl  retained,  to  the  prejudices  of  our  inter- 
ests not  less  than  of  our  rights.  Are  we  in  a  position  to  resent  or  repel 
the  aggression?  We  have  neither  troops,  nor  treasury,  nor  government. 
Are  we  even  in  a  condition  to  remonstrate  with  dignity?  The  just  impu- 
tations on  our  own  faith  in  respect  to  our  own  treaty  ought  to  first  be 
removed.  Are  we  entitled  by  nature  and  compact  to  a  free  participation 
in  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi?  Spain  excludes  us  from  it.  Is  pub- 
lic credit  an  indispensable  resource  in  time  of  public  danger?  We  seemed 
to  have  abandoned  its  cause  as  desperate  and  irretrievable.  Is  commerce 
of  importance  to  national  wealth?  Ours  is  at  the  lowest  point  of  declen- 
sion. Is  respectability  in  the  eyes  of  foreign  powers  a  safeguard  against 
foreign  encroachments?  The  imbecility  of  our  government  even  forbids 
them  to  treat  with  us.  Our  ambassadors  abroad  are  the  mere  pageants 
of  mimic  sovereignty.  Is  private  credit  the  friend  and  patron  of  industry? 
That  most  useful  kind  which  relates  to  borrowing  and  lending  is  reduced 
within  the  narrowest  limits,  and  still  more  from  an  opinion  of  an  insecurity 
than  from  the  scarcity  of  money. 


74  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

He  summed  up  this  terrific  indictment  of  the  imbecility  of 
the  government  as  follows : 

To  shorten  an  enumeration  of  particulars  which  can  afford  neither 
pleasure  nor  instruction,  it  may  in  general  be  demanded  what  indication 
is  there  of  national  disorder,  poverty,  and  insignilicance,  that  could  befall 
a  community  so  peculiarly  blessed  with  natural  advantages  as  we  are, 
which  does  not  form  a  part  of  the  dark  catalogue  of  our  pubUc  misfortunes. 

He  broke  forth: 

Here,  my  countrymen,  impelled  by  every  motive  that  ought  to 
influence  an  enlightened  people,  let  us  make  a  firm  stand  for  our  safety, 
our  tranquillity,  our  dignity,  our  reputation.  Let  us  break  the  fatal  charm 
which  has  too  long  seduced  us  from  the  paths  of  felicity  and  prosperity. 

He  showed  impatience  with  the  friends  of  the  old  system, 
since  they  admitted  the  national  government  was  without 
energy  but  refused  to  confer  necessary  power  to  supply  that 
energy.  He  declared  that  they  aimed  at  irreconcilables;  an 
augmentation  of  Federal  authority  without  diminution  of 
State  authority,  sovereignty  in  the  Union,  and  complete 
independence  in  the  members;  in  a  word,  they  cherished  "  with 
blind  devotion  the  poHtical  monster  of  an  imperium  in  im- 
perioy 

How  regarded  by  his  opponents.  His  unceasing  efforts  to 
strengthen  the  national  authority  had  made  him  the  chief 
target  for  the  shafts  of  the  advocates  of  liberty.  He  was  held 
up  as  a  monarchist,  an  enemy  to  republican  government.  He 
keenly  resented  the  imputations.  He  remarked,  "  The 
charge  of  a  conspiracy  against  the  liberties  of  the  people,  which 
has  been  indiscriminately  brought  against  the  advocates  of 
the  plan,  has  something  in  it  too  wanton,  and  too  malignant, 
not  to  excite  the  indignation  of  every  man  who  feels  in  his  own 
bosom  a  refutation  of  the  calumny.  The  perpetual  changes 
which  have  been  rung  upon  the  wealthy,  the  well-born,  and  the 
great,  have  been  such  as  to  inspire  the  disgust  of  all  sensible 
men."    He  ended  the  Federahst  papers  in  significant  language; 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES         75 

These  judicious  reflections  contain  a  lesson  of  moderation  to  all  the 
sincere  lovers  of  the  Union,  and  ought  to  put  them  upon  their  guard 
against  hazarding  anarchy,  civil  war,  a  perpetual  ahenation  of  the  States 
from  each  other,  and  perhaps  a  military  despotism  of  a  victorious  dema- 
gogue, in  the  pursuit  of  what  they  are  not  likely  to  obtain,  but  from  time 
and  experience.  ...  A  nation  without  a  national  government  is,  in 
my  view,  an  awful  spectacle.  The  establishment  of  a  Constitution  in  a 
time  of  profound  peace,  by  the  voluntary  consent  of  a  whole  people,  is  a 
prodigy,  to  the  completion  of  which  I  look  forward  with  trembhng  anxiety. 
I  dread  the  more  the  consequences  of  new  attempts  because  I  know  that 
powerful  individuals,  in  this  and  in  other  States,  are  enemies  to  a  general 
national  government  in  every  possible  shape. 

In  the  New  York  convention.  In  the  New  York  convention, 
called  to  act  upon  the  report  of  the  Federal  Convention, 
Hamilton  by  all  odds  was  the  most  interesting  figure.  He 
found  himself  in  a  body  of  men,  sixty-five  in  number,  with 
forty-six  inclined  to  oppose  ratification.  The  interest  he  had 
created  by  the  pubhcation  of  his  arguments  prior  to  the  meet- 
ing of  the  convention,  amounted  to  a  sensation.  It  was  cen- 
tered upon  what  he  would  do  as  leader  of  a  hopeless  minority. 
His  usual  sagacity  was  displayed  by  no  sign  of  perturbation. 
His  efforts  were  constant,  but  respectful  to  the  opposition.  He 
declared  that  all  sought  the  same  end,  a  repubhcan  govern- 
ment upon  a  solid  basis;  that  the  history  of  governments 
revealed  a  struggle  between  the  adherents  of  hberty  and 
authority;  in  our  Revolution,  which  gave  to  us  the  confedera- 
tion, the  zeal  for  liberty  became  predominant  and  excessive; 
the  fathers  had  acted  alone  from  this  passion,  with  no  other 
view  than  to  escape  from  a  despotism;  while  this  object  was 
valuable,  another  was  equally  valuable,  but  one  which  their 
enthusiasm  incapacitated  them  to  properly  estimate:  namely, 
strength  and  stability  in  the  organization  of  the  government, 
and  vigor  in  its  operations.  He  then  declared  that  while  the 
body  of  the  people  in  any  country  sincerely  desires  the  welfare 
of  the  people,  they  are  not  possessed  of  the  discernment  and 
stability  necessary  for  systematic  government;  they  are  too 


76  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

often  led  into  excesses  by  misinformation  and  passion;  the 
necessary  sacrifices  of  local  advantages  to  general  interest 
are  rarely  observed  in  practise.  While  the  State  govern- 
ments are  essential  to  the  form  and  spirit  of  the  general  sys- 
tem, national  supervision  is  a  prerequisite.  The  danger  even 
from  the  new  system  is  not  too  much  dependence  of  the 
States  upon  the  nation,  but  rather  the  reverse.  The  States 
can  never  lose  their  powers  till  the  whole  people  of  America  are 
robbed  of  their  liberties.  He  here  for  the  first  time  elucidated 
the  principle  of  double  sovereignty  of  the  system.     He  said: 

That  two  supreme  powers  cannot  act  together,  is  false.  They  are 
inconsistent  only  when  they  are  aimed  at  each  other,  or  at  one  indivisible 
object.  The  laws  of  the  United  States  are  supreme  as  to  all  their  proper, 
constitutional  objects;  the  laws  of  the  States  are  supreme  in  the  same 
way.  These  supreme  laws  may  act  on  different  objects  without  clashing; 
or  they  may  operate  on  different  parts  of  the  same  common  object  with 
perfect  harmony. 

He  again  disclaimed  any  intention  to  repudiate  the  State 
governments,  but  reminded  the  convention,  that 

The  Constitution  under  examination  is  framed  upon  truly  Repub- 
lican principles;  and  that  it  is  expressly  designed  to  provide  for  the 
common  protection  and  the  general  welfare  of  the  United  States  and 
therefore  it  must  be  utterly  repugnant  to  this  Constitution  to  subvert 
the  State  governments  or  oppress  the  people. 

In  this  manner  he  proceeded.  His  calm  yet  intense  interest 
in  the  support  of  the  new  system,  which  kept  him  upon  his  feet 
much  of  the  time,  won  for  his  cause  the  respect  of  all,  but  not 
their  active  support.  There  were  many  episodes  in  the  con- 
vention which  were  dramatic.  It  ended  at  last  with  Hamilton 
in  the  majority.  It  is  doubtful  whether  another  instance  of  the 
signal  effect  of  cold  logic  can  be  found  in  the  history  of 
conventions. 

Washington's  foresight.  As  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  it 
fell  to  the  hands  of  the  master-builder  Hamilton  to  organize 
the  machinery  of  the  government.     The  need  of  the  hour  was 


ORGANIZATION   IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        77 

not  a  destructive,  but  a  constructive  t>pe  of  statesmanship.  It 
was  a  builder,  not  a  wrecker,  that  was  now  demanded.  Wash- 
ington's keen  insight  sought  out  the  New  Yorker.  Here  was 
Hamilton's  opportunity.  He  had  frankly  declared  his  sus- 
picions of  the  inadequacy  of  the  new  plan  to  meet  the  ends  for 
which  it  was  intended.  But  here  was  the  chance  to  fill  in  by 
construction  what  he  had  failed  in  stipulation.  He  at  once 
took  the  liberal,  as  against  the  strict  construction  theory.  He 
employed  both  the  expressed  and  implied  powers  in  the  inter- 
preting of  his  constitutional  limits. 

Hamilton's  purposes  announced.  That  he  might  reahze 
the  energy  and  stabihty  for  which  he  had  been  so  long  laboring, 
his  first  effort  was  to  strengthen  the  pubHc  credit.  In  his 
first  report  he  set  out  the  objects  to  be  secured,  as  follows: 

To  justify  and  preserve  the  confidence  of  the  most  enhghtened  friends 
of  good  government;  to  promote  the  increasing  respectabihty  of  the  Amer- 
ican name;  to  answer  the  calls  of  justice;  to  restore  landed  property  to  its 
due  value;  to  furnish  new  sources  both  to  agriculture  and  commerce;  to 
cement  more  closely  the  union  of  the  States;  to  add  to  their  security 
against  foreign  attack;  to  establish  public  order  on  the  basis  of  an  upright 
and  liberal  policy. 

There  is  no  hint  of  liberty  in  this,  except  as  it  may  be 
inferred  from  vigor  and  energy  in  administration. 

First  steps.  His  assumption  of  State  debts  was  his  farthest 
reach.  At  first  it  might  be  thought  his  pohcy  would  be 
detrimental  to  the  nation.  But  soon  it  was  noted  that  in  this 
manner  he  was  seeking  national  influence  over  certain  State 
matters,  and  at  once  was  winning  favor  from  them  by  the 
lightening  of  their  burdens  of  debt.  The  States  with  much 
debt  were  pleased  with  this  poHcy.  Others  with  little  debt 
were  displeased.  Virginia  remonstrated.  It  was  upon  this 
occasion  that  Hamilton's  imperious  nature  broke  out.  He 
declared  to  John  Jay,  "  This  is  the  first  symptom  of  a  spirit 
which  must  either  be  killed  or  will  kill  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States." 


78  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Second  important  step.  His  next  great  scheme  for  nation- 
alizing the  government  was  the  Bank.  He  made  an  exhaustive 
report  upon  the  pubhc  credit,  also  upon  manufactures.  He 
recommended  the  estabhshment  of  a  Bank  to  satisfy  the  needs 
of  the  people.  He  submitted  his  plan  to  the  President,  who, 
for  information  and  advice,  requested  a  written  opinion  upon 
the  constitutionahty  of  the  measure,  from  both  Jefferson  and 
Hamilton. 

Jefferson  on  the  Bank  question.  As  should  have  been 
expected,  Jefferson, "  the  watch-dog"  of  the  rights  of  the  States, 
reported  adversely.  He  declared  that  the  measure  was  not 
sanctioned  by  the  Constitution.  He  based  liis  opinion  upon 
the  clause  in  the  Constitution,  "that  all  powers  not  delegated 
to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it 
to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States,  or  to  the  people;" 
the  power  in  question  was  not  included  in  this  sanction,  nor 
in  the  Hst  of  enumerated  powers  of  the  government.  He 
asserted  that  it  was  not  included  in  the  general  provision, 
"that  Congress  can  make  all  laws  which  are  necessary  and 
proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  enumerated  powers," 
since  they  can  be  carried  into  execution  without  the  Bank,  and 
therefore  it  was  not  necessary.  He  also  declared  that  although 
the  Bank  might  be  convenient,  it  was  not  necessary;  and  any 
law  made  for  convenience,  which  was  not  necessary,  would  be 
without  force. 

Hamilton's  opinion.  To  this  line  of  argument  Hamilton 
repHed.  He  laid  down  the  proposition,  "that  every  power 
vested  in  a  government  is  in  its  nature  sovereign,  and  includes 
by  force  of  the  term,  a  right  to  employ  all  the  means  requisite 
and  fairly  applicable  to  the  attainment  of  the  ends  of  such 
power;  and  which  are  not  precluded  by  restrictions  and 
exceptions  specified  in  the  Constitution,  are  not  immoral,  are 
not  contrary  to  the  essential  ends  of  political  society."  He 
then  cited  the  clause  which  defines  the  supreme  law  of  the  land 
to  be  "the  Constitution,  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof, 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES         79 

and  the  treaties"  in  vindication  of  his  position  on  the  Bank 
proposition.  He  admitted  that  the  government  can  exercise 
onlv  such  powers  as  are  delegated  to  it,  but  denied  that  dele- 
gation must  be  necessarily  expressed,  and  affirmed  that  it 
might  be  implied.  He  declared  impHcation  was  as  much 
delegated  as  expression.  If  the  Constitution  specifies  an  end, 
and  is  silent  about  the  means  to  reach  it,  the  latter  is  delegated 
bv  implication  as  certainly  as  the  former  is  by  expression. 
Here  we  have  drawn  for  us  the  fines  which  are  to  distinguish 
the  Jeft"ersonian  from  the  Hamiltonian  theory  of  govern- 
ment. The  Bank  measure  became  a  law  by  the  signature  of 
Washington. 

Practical  necessity  of  his  theory.  The  inauguration  of 
national  spirit  and  administration  was  the  occasion  for  numer- 
ous quarrels  between  the  two  sovereignties,  national  and 
State.  The  appfication  of  national  authority  in  many  States 
was  disputed  by  the  State.  For  example,  the  supervision  of 
the  public  lands,  and  their  occupancy  by  the  Indians  when  in 
the  territorial  limits  of  a  State,  were  the  source  of  much  galling 
to  the  State.  And  in  specific  cases  fike  that  of  Georgia,  only 
the  strong  arm  of  the  national  government,  which  was  prom- 
ised by  the  vigorous  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  induced  the 
State  to  desist  from  further  interference.  Another  famous  case 
was  the  State  opposition  to  the  national  enforcement  of  the 
hated  excise  law,  one  of  Hamilton's  favorite  measures,  to 
extend  the  national  authority. 

Effect  upon  the  advocates  of  liberty.  Such  events  tended 
to  confirm  his  fears  for  Republican  governments,  and  his 
treatment  of  them  was  designed  to  increase  the  fears  of  the 
ultra-democratic  element.  That  element  became  convinced 
that  their  suspicion  of  the  monarchical  trend  of  affairs  was 
no  chimera,  but  a  reality.  Hamilton  was  now  openly  charged 
with  heaping  up  a  vast  debt,  and  providing  for  its  continuance, 
rather  than  for  its  liquidation;  that  he  maintained  a  corrupt 
squadron  to  influence  the  legislative  department  of  the  govern- 


8o  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

ment,  and  was  employing  the  same  to  extend  the  principles 
of  aristocracy  and  monarchy.  These  fears  were  grounded 
upon  his  well-known  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  State 
Sovereignty,  his  yearning  for  national  supremacy,  his  energy 
in  securing  by  construction  what  had  been  lost  in  stipulation, 
and  his  profuse  employment  of  the  doctrine  of  implied  powers. 
His  attitude  upon  assumption,  the  Bank,  and  commerce,  was 
clearly  discerned  by  friend  and  foe.  His  insistence  upon  com- 
plete control  of  taxation  and  revenues,  and  the  strong  hand 
with  which  that  control  was  to  be  effected,  had  the  same 
meaning.  His  success  in  reorganizing  the  army  and  his  plea 
for  a  strong  navy  for  defense  as  well  as  for  commerce,  taught 
the  same  lessons.  His  advice  upon  a  neutral  position  toward 
France  and  England,  his  leaning  in  his  sympathies  to  the  Eng- 
hsh,  rather  than  to  the  French  system  of  government,  con- 
vinced his  opponents  that  he  was  monarchical  in  his  nature 
and  aspirations.  His  policy  of  territorial  expansion,  and  his 
conception  of  American  ascendancy  in  the  western  world,  the 
former  of  which  was  executed  by  Jefferson,  and  the  latter  by 
Monroe,  demonstrated  his  imperial  ambitions.  His  con- 
ception of  an  energetic  government  did  not  cease  with  his 
term  of  office.  In  1799  he  outlined  his  views  to  the  Speaker 
of  the  House  of  Representatives.  He  desired  to  strengthen 
centralization  in  the  interest  of  power  in  the  government,  by 
an  enlargement  of  the  national  Judiciary.  He  recommended 
a  pohcy  of  internal  improvement,  a  revenue  system  which 
would  supply  abundant  funds,  a  stronger  and  more  efficient 
army  and  navy,  an  enlargement  of  national  authority,  a 
lessening  of  State  rights  and  an  enactment  and  enforcement  of 
effective  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws. 

Mark  of  great  weakness.  In  the  revolution  of  1800,  which 
witnessed  the  Hamiltonian  administration  under  Adams  super- 
seded by  the  Jeffersonian,  Hamilton  saw,  as  he  thought,  an 
end  to  good  government.  His  petulance  broke  out  in  a  letter 
to  Morris  as  follows: 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IX  THE   UNITED   STATES         8i 

Mine  is  an  odd  destiny.  Perhaps  no  man  in  the  United  States  has 
sacrificed  or  done  more  for  the  present  Constitution  than  myself;  and  con- 
trary to  all  my  anticipations  of  its  fate,  as  you  know  from  the  beginning, 
I  am  still  laboring  to  prop  the  frail  and  worthless  fabric.  Yet  I  have  the 
murmurs  of  its  friends  no  less  than  the  curses  of  its  foes,  for  my  reward. 
What  can  I  do  better  than  to  withdraw  from  the  scene?  Every  day 
proves  to  me  more  and  more  that  this  American  world  was  not  made 
for  me. 

What  was  he,  politically?  We  may  now  raise  the  question, 
Was  Hamilton  a  monarchist?  The  testimony  of  his  political 
enemies  answers  in  the  affirmative.  What  will  be  the  ver- 
dict of  history?  He  had  a  great  admiration  for  the  English 
government.  He  pronounced  it  the  best  in  existence.  He 
shuddered  at  the  excess  of  French  repubhcanism  which  sent 
the  King  to  the  block.  He  fondly  cherished  strength  in  the 
nation  and  deplored  too  much  of  it  in  the  State.  He  wor- 
shiped at  the  shrine  of  authority  and  order,  rather  than  at 
that  of  Hberty  and  freedom.  He  declared  the  establishment 
of  justice  and  the  security  of  freedom  to  be  the  ends  of  govern- 
ment. These  ends  can  be  sought  successfully  only  in  the 
government  which  has  authority.  He  frequently  referred  to 
the  value  of  liberty,  but  never  confused  it  with  license.  His 
insistence  was  ever  for  the  establishment  of  a  republic,  and  he 
bitterly  resented  the  charge  of  desiring  to  create  a  monarchy. 
He  proposed  to  be  guided  by  the  British  constitution  in  seeking 
the  elements  of  stability  and  permanency  which  a  Republican 
form  demands,  and  in  nothing  more.  So  much  from  his  own 
testimony.  His  plan  submitted  to  the  convention  has  been 
taken  as  monarchical  in  spirit.  This  does  not  necessarily 
follow.  He  persistently  asserted  that  the  government  must 
rest  on  the  consent  of  the  people;  that  with  the  loss  of  that 
principle,  liberty  would  be  lost.  It  must  appear  to  all  that 
his  ambition  to  establish  a  government,  sovereign  in  its  nature 
and  application,  energetic  in  its  administration,  potent  in  its 
influence,  stable  in  its  character  at  home  and  abroad,  whose 
decrees  were  to  be  supreme  throughout  the  land,  and   re- 


82  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

spected  by  every  State  and  every  citizen,  —  led  him  to  utter 
doctrines  of  centralization  which  were  inclined  toward  mon- 
archy, as  viewed  by  his  opponents.  It  must  also  appear  that 
it  is  unfair  to  judge  a  political  philosophy  by  fugitive  state- 
ments made  in  the  heat  of  controversy.  If  upon  such  testi- 
mony Hamilton  is  proved  a  monarchist,  upon  the  same 
grounds  Jefferson  is  proved  an  anarchist.  While  Jefferson's 
love  of  Hberty  led  him  to  utter  extravagances,  so  Hamilton's 
regard  for  order  induced  him  to  commit  a  Hke  blunder  in  the 
opposite  direction. 

Jefferson  and  Hamilton.  All  parties  must  concede  to 
Jefferson  invaluable  service  in  emphasizing  the  value  of  local 
self-government  and  the  liberty  of  the  individual,  and  they 
must  concede  to  Hamilton  no  less  valuable  service  in  the  in- 
auguration of  the  prerogatives  of  central  authority  and  order 
in  the  nation.  To  Jefferson  was  allotted  a  ripe  old  age,  during 
which  he  saw  the  Hamiltonian  theory  put  into  practise  by  his 
own  adherents,  as  well  as  by  himself,  in  numerous  cases.  Had 
Hamilton  been  given  the  years  allotted  to  the  average  man,  he 
would  have  observed  the  government,  which  his  genius  had 
done  most  to  call  into  existence,  administered  by  his  opponents 
for  forty  years,  and  under  that  administration  developed  to 
such  effectiveness  as  he  could  scarcely  have  hoped  for  even 
under  his  own  personal  direction. 


CHAPTER  V 

JOHN  MARSHALL,  THE  RIGHT  ARM  OF  NATIONALITY 

John  Marshall  with  Washington.  Among  the  suffering 
soldiers  in  that  terrible  winter  at  Valley  Forge  might  have  been 
seen  a  slight  and  slender  figure,  with  fair  countenance  and  a 
stooped  posture,  frequenting  the  headquarters  of  his  chief 
and  shivering  with  cold  against  which  his  scanty  clothing  was 
little  protection.  Here,  as  in  the  case  of  another,  yet  more 
brilHant,  if  less  judicial,  he  received  the  object  lessons  on  the 
imbecility  of  a  government  without  coercive  powers.  The 
years  of  war  and  loose  confederation  were  as  significant  to  him 
as  to  Washington  and  when  the  Federal  Convention  had  com- 
pleted its  work,  in  which  John  Marshall  had  no  part,  and  had 
sent  it  to  the  people  of  the  several  States  to  ratify  or  reject,  no 
man  in  the  nation  except  Washington  and  his  brilHant  secretary 
so  clearly  recognized  the  necessity  of  the  adoption  of  the  Con- 
stitution as  this  tall  Virginian  who  was  destined  to  become 
America's  greatest  chief  justice.  Both  by  nature  and  train- 
ing, his  was  a  judicial  mind;  a  man  of  few  words  but  incisive 
expression.  As  was  said  of  him  by  a  contemporary,  "He 
possesses  one  original  and  almost  supernatural  faculty;  the 
faculty  of  developing  a  subject  by  a  single  glance  of  the  mind 
and  detecting  at  once  the  very  point  on  which  every  contro- 
versy depends.  No  matter  what  the  question;  though  ten 
times  more  knotty  than  the  gnarled  oak,  the  lightning  of 
heaven  is  not  more  rapid  or  more  resistless  than  his  astonishing 
penetration."     He  was  one  of  the  trio  who  received  his  legal 

83 


84 


POLITICAL  THEORY   AND   PARTY 


training  from  George  Wythe,  and  it  is  no  disparagement  to 
either  Jefferson  or  Madison  to  assert  that  Marshall  was  the 
greatest  law  student  ever  trained  by  the  great  chancellor. 

Early  public  service.  After  a  brief  career  as  a  soldier  at  the 
head  of  the  Virginia  "  Minute  Men,"  a  promising  career  at  the 
Bar  just  opening,  which  in  a  decade  had  placed  him  at 
the  top,  he  entered  the  legislature  of  his  State  in  1782  where  he 
labored    for  six   years.     This  period,  which  is  significantly 

denominated  the  "  crit- 
ical period  "  in  Ameri- 
can history,  prepared 
him  to  render  his  coun- 
try his  really  first  great 
service  in  the  State 
convention  which  was 
called  to  act  upon  the 
Federal  Constitution. 

His  service  in  the 
ratifying  convention. 
There  were  at  least  six 
men  who  in  history 
stand  out  pre-eminent- 
ly as  leaders  of  two 
schools  of  political 
theory  at  this  time.  At  the  head  of  the  one  stood  Jeffer- 
son. With  him  stood  Patrick  Henry  and  Samuel  Adams. 
Two  were  from  the  "  Old  Dominion,"  and  one  from 
Massachusetts.  At  the  head  of  the  other  school  stood 
Hamilton.  With  him  stood  James  Madison  and  John 
Marshall.  Two  were  from  the  "  Old  Dominion,"  and  one 
from  New  York.  While  Madison  was  better  known  and  was 
depended  upon  most  for  the  outcome  of  the  Virginia  conduct 
toward  the  new  Constitution,  and  while  it  is  conceded  on  all 
hands  that  his  influence  was  superior  to  that  of  any  other  man 
in  the  convention,  it  must  also  be  conceded   that  Patrick 


John  Marshall 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES       85 

Henry's  powerful  eloquence  was  overmatched  by  the  incisive 
logic  of  ^Marshall,  whose  speeches  wrung  from  Henry  liimself 
the  tribute  conceding  to  him  "an  eloquence,  splendid,  mag- 
nificent, and  sufficient  to  shake  the  human  mind,"  and  a 
"character  which  deserves  the  highest  veneration  for  his 
candor  on  all  occasions."  Marshall  well  knew  the  infatuation 
of  Henry's  natural  eloquence.  His  mighty  prestige  gained 
by  his  unequaled  oratory,  and  this  was  felt  by  Marshall  as 
the  invulnerable  bulwark  of  the  friends  of  the  State  Sov- 
ereigntv  scheme  of  the  old  Confederation.  With  a  determina- 
tion  born  of  despair,  under  the  imbecile  government  described 
by  Washington  as  "one  to-day,  and  thirteen  tomorrow,"  he 
directed  his  assaults  upon  this  stronghold.  He  made  three 
elaborate  arguments.  His  first  was  in  reply  to  Henry,  who 
inveighed  against  giving  to  the  government  the  power  of  taxa- 
tion, and  argued  for  its  retention  to  the  States.  His  second 
was  in  reply  to  the  argument  that  the  State  should  retain 
control  at  all  times  over  the  miHtia.  His  last  was  a  lucid 
exposition  upon  the  provision  in  the  Constitution  for  the 
Judiciary. 

His  position  on  political  theory.  The  trend  of  his  mind  is 
clearly  revealed  here  at  the  age  of  thirty-three.  He  was  in 
unison  with  the  Fathers  in  his  desire  to  secure  the  blessings  of 
good  government  and  of  liberty.  He  differed  from  Jefferson 
in  his  methods  of  securing  that  liberty,  and  agreed  with  Ham- 
ilton that  the  end  must  be  sought  in  a  vigorous  administration 
of  an  energetic  government.  He  saw  with  clear  vision  the 
line  of  dispute,  and  with  the  precision  of  the  marksman  sent 
his  arrow  to  the  pivotal  point.  "I  conceive,"  he  said,  "  that 
the  object  of  this  discussion  now  before  us  is  whether  democ- 
racy or  despotism  be  most  eligible.  .  .  .  The  supporters  of 
the  Constitution  claim  the  title  of  being  firm  friends  of  the 
liberty  and  the  rights  of  mankind.  They  say  they  consider  it 
the  best  means  of  protecting  liberty.  We,  sir,  idolize  de- 
mocracy."    He  then  argued  that  the  Constitution  offers  a 


86  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

well-regulated  democracy  which  is  to  be  preferred  to  any 
monarchy.  He  declared  that  "  strict  observance  of  justice  and 
public  faith,  and  a  steady  adherence  to  virtue,"  were  not  only 
maxims  of  democracy,  but  principles  of  good  government.  He 
declared  the  object  of  the  national  government  was  to  protect 
the  United  States,  and  promote  the  general  welfare  of  the 
people.  Men  and  money  are  necessary,  and  experience 
proves  that  neither  can  be  obtained  under  a  system  of  State 
requisition  such  as  then  existed.  The  remedy  was  to  place 
the  taxing  power  in  the  nation  instead  of  in  the  States.  His 
argument  upon  the  national  control  of  the  militia  was  of  the 
same  tenor. 

Upon  the  necessity  of  a  sound  Judiciary.  But  his  disserta- 
tion upon  the  Judiciary  is  the  best  example  of  his  lucid  and 
forcible  power  of  statement.  His  language  is  as  chaste  as  it 
is  simple.  His  thought  is  as  clear  as  the  technicality  of  the 
subject  will  permit.  His  reasoning  is  as  cogent  as  his  logic 
is  sound.  ''Here  are  tribunals,"  he  said,  "appointed  for  the 
decision  of  controversies  which  were  before,  either  not  at  all, 
or  improperly,  provided  for.  That  many  benefits  will  result 
from  this  to  the  members  of  the  collective  society  every  one 
confesses.  Unless  its  organization  be  defective,  and  so  con- 
structed as  to  injure  instead  of  accommodate  the  convenience 
of  the  people,  it  merits  our  approbation."  After  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  sources  of  objection  in  the  manner  of  selecting  the 
judges,  and  their  tenure  of  office,  he  proceeds,  "  What  is  it 
that  makes  us  trust  our  judges?  Their  independence  in  office 
and  manner  of  appointment.  Are  not  the  judges  of  the  Federal 
court  chosen  with  as  much  wisdom  as  the  judges  of  the  State 
courts?  Are  they  not  equally  if  not  more  independent?  If 
so  shall  we  not  decide  that  they  will  decide  with  equal  im- 
partiafity  and  candor?  If  there  be  as  much  wisdom  and 
knowledge  in  the  United  States  as  in  a  particular  State,  shall 
we  conclude  that  that  wisdom  and  knowledge  will  not  be 
equally  exercised  in  the  selection  of  judges?"     He  most  ably 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        87 

defended  the  provisions  defining  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Federal  court.  In  a  single  paragraph  he  foreshadowed  his 
service  in  behalf  of  nationality  or  constitutional  supremacy, 
which  was  rendered  during  thirty-four  years  of  performance 
of  duty  as  the  head  of  the  greatest  tribunal  known  to  man. 
In  speaking  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  courts  he  said, 
"Can  they  (Congress)  go  beyond  the  delegated  powers?  If 
they  were  to  make  a  law  not  warranted  by  any  of  the  powers 
enumerated,  it  would  be  considered  by  the  judges  as  an 
infringement  of  the  Constitution  which  they  are  to  guard. 
They  would  not  consider  such  a  law  as  coming  under  their 
jurisdiction." 

His  conception  of  the  extent  of  authority.  Here  we  have 
anticipated  the  dignity  and  power  to  be  lodged  in  the  Federal 
Judiciary.  It  will  not  only  receive  cases  upon  an  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  the  highest  court  in  the  State,  and  pronounce 
it  void  if  in  the  judgment  of  the  judges  it  is  contrary  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  but  it  will  go  further.  It 
will  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  constitutionality  of  a  law  enacted 
by  the  legislature  of  the  nation  and  signed  by  the  Executive 
of  the  nation,  and  if,  in  the  judgment  of  the  court,  it  is  not 
warranted  by  the  Constitution,  it  will  declare  it  void  and  of  no 
effect.  Within  thirteen  years  the  man  who  uttered  this 
remarkable  principle  of  judicial  prerogative,  then  unknown 
in  the  annals  of  history,  sat  as  the  chief  justice,  where  he  was 
destined  to  remain  for  thirty-four  years,  during  which  time  in 
that  position  he  did  more  to  augmicnt  constitutional  suprem- 
acy and  thereby  increase  the  national  authority  and  create  de 
facto  a  national  system  which  soon  commanded  respect  at 
home  and  abroad,  than  any  other  man  save  Washington  and 
Hamilton. 

The  Supreme  Court  under  Marshall.  During  his  thirty- 
four  years  of  service  as  chief  justice  (1801-1835),  Marshall 
delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  five  hundred  and  nine- 
teen cases.     Of  this  number  at  least  sixty-two  cases  involved 


88  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

the  principles  of  constitutional  law,  thirty-six  of  which  Mar- 
shall wrote  himself.  Very  rarely  was  there  given  a  dissenting 
opinion,  and  only  once  was  the  chief  justice  compelled  to  give 
a  dissenting  opinion  from  that  of  the  majority  of  the  court. 
It  is  nearer  correct  to  say  that  in  all  except  one  case  the 
majority  of  the  court  joined  the  great  chief  justice  in  his 
opinion.  This  item  is  of  great  interest  to  show,  not  only  the 
strength  .of  the  jurist  but  the  regard  in  which  the  tribunal  over 
which  he  presided  was  held,  and  the  respect  for  their  opinions 
shown  by  the  people  at  large.  It  gave  to  the  decisions  of  this 
court  the  force  of  written  law.  The  vast  importance  of  this 
fact  cannot  be  overstated  when  it  is  remembered  that  the 
whole  country  was  divided  upon  the  question  of  power  in  the 
nation  on  the  one  hand,  and  privilege  in  the  States  on  the  other. 
Marshall  said  the  whole  country  "was  divided  between  two 
great  political  parties;  the  one  of  which  contemplated  America 
as  a  nation  and  labored  incessantly  to  invest  the  Federal  head 
with  powers  competent  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  and 
the  other,,  attached  to  the  State  governments,  viewed  all  the 
powers  of  Congress  with  jealousy  and  assented  reluctantly  to 
measures  which  would  enable  the  head  to  act  in  any  respect 
independently  of  the  members."  This  is  a  fair  statement  of 
the  hne  of  difference  between  the  two  schools  of  pohtical 
theory.  From  the  nature  of  law-making,  a  legal  enactment  is 
law  until  it  is  either  repealed  or  is  pronounced  void  upon  consti- 
tutional grounds.  The  first  method  is  the  one  employed  in 
European  governments;  but  both  are  employed  in  this  coun- 
try. Herein  is  the  unique  character  of  the  Federal  Judiciary. 
From  the  very  beginning,  both  by  design  and  practise,  the 
Judiciary  is  the  tribunal  to  determine  the  force  of  law.  But 
the  court  will  never  act  until  the  case,  in  regular  process,  comes 
before  it.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  what  the  law  ought  to  be; 
it  judges  what  it  is  only.  If,  in  its  judgment,  the  law  tran- 
scends the  authority  of  the  makers,  it  so  declares,  and  from 
the  nature  of  legal  enactment,  it  is  void. 


ORGANIZATION   IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        89 

Marbury  against  Madison.  The  first  decision  by  Marshall 
to  develop  this  principle  was  Marbury  against  Madison,  in 
which  it  was  sought  to  compel  the  Secretary  of  State  to  deliver 
a  commission  of  appointment,  made  out  by  order  of  President 
Adams  but  not  delivered  before  the  expiration  of  his  term  of 
office.  Marshall  in  dehvering  the  decision  went  into  the 
nature  of  the  government.     He  said: 

The  question  whether  an  act  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  can 
become  the  law  of  the  land,  is  a  question  deeply  interesting  to  the  United 
States.  .  .  .  That  the  people  have  an  original  right  to  estabHsh, 
for  their  future  government,  such  principles  as  in  their  judgment  shall 
most  conduce  to  their  own  happiness  is  the  basis  on  which  the  whole 
American  fabric  has  been  erected.  .  .  .  The  powers  of  the  leg- 
islature are  defined  and  limited,  and  that  those  limits  might  not  be 
mistaken,  or  forgotten,  the  Constitution  is  written.  .  .  .  The  Con- 
stitution is  either  a  superior  paramount  law,  unchangeable  by  ordinary 
means,  or  it  is  on  a  level  with  ordinary  legislative  acts,  and,  like  any  other 
acts,  is  alterable  when  the  legislature  shall  please  to  alter  it.  If  the  former 
part  of  the  alternative  be  true,  then  a  legislative  act  contrary  to  the  Con- 
stitution is  not  law;  if  the  latter  part  be  true,  then  written  Constitutions 
are  absurd  attempts,  on  the  part  of  the  people,  to  limit  a  power  in  its 
nature  illimitable.  ...  It  is  emphatically  the  province  and  duty 
of  the  Judicial  Department  to  say  what  the  law  is.  Those  who  apply 
the  rule  to  particular  cases  must  of  necessity  expound  and  interpret  that 
rule.  If  two  laws  conflict  with  each  other,  the  courts  must  decide  upon 
the  operation  of  each.  ...  If,  then,  the  courts  are  to  regard  the 
Constitution,  and  the  Constitution  is  superior  to  any  ordinary  act  of  the 
legislature,  the  Constitution,  and  not  such  ordinary  act,  must  govern 
the  case  to  which  they  both  apply.  Those  then  who  controvert  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  Constitution  is  to  be  considered  in  court  as  a  paramount 
law,  are  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining  that  courts  must  close 
their  eyes  on  the  Constitution  and  see  only  the  law.  This  doctrine  would 
subvert  the  very  foundation  of  all  written  constitutions.  It  would 
declare  that  an  act  which,  according  to  the  principles  and  theory  of 
our  government,  is  entirely  void,  is  yet  in  practise  completely  obliga- 
tory. It  would  declare  that  if  the  legislature  shall  do  what  is  expressly 
forbidden,  such  act,  notwithstanding  the  express  prohibition,  is  in 
reality  effectual.  ...  It  thus  reduces  to  nothing  what  we  have 
deemed  the  greatest  improvement  on  political  institutions,  a  written 
Constitution. 


90  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

There  was  no  escape  from  this  sort  of  reasoning.  While 
it  was  hailed  by  the  zealots  of  State  Sovereignty  as  the  sure 
indication  of  the  loss  of  priceless  liberties,  by  the  adherents  of 
a  strong  government  it  was  a  demonstration  of  the  efficiency 
of  the  judicial  power  in  the  system. 

Relation  of  State  and  Federal  courts.     The  next  decisive 
step  was  toward  the  prerogative  of  this  court  to  review  and 
set  aside,  if  necessary,  the  decision  reached  in  the  highest 
court  of  a  State.     The  Marbury  case  demonstrated  to  the 
friends  of  the  looser  style  of  government  the  unmistakable 
tendency  of  the  Judiciary  to  assert  the  unheard  of  prerogative 
to  nullify  an  act  of  the  people  as  expressed  by  the  law-making 
power.     It  promised,  they  alleged,  the  fulfilment  of  all  their 
fears,  so  frequently  expressed  upon  all  sides.     These  devotees 
of  liberty  in  government  saw  in  the  sovereign  States  the 
repository  of  their  rights,  and  to  these  several  governments 
they  looked  for  defense.     This  theory  had  been  promulgated 
in  1798-99  in  the  famous  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions. 
In  the  variety  of  interests  of  both  the  nation  and  the  States, 
in  the  poorly  defined  relation  between  them,  in  the  compHca- 
tions  of  co-ordinate  sovereignties,  inevitable  disputes  must 
arise,  which  must  demand  a  tribunal  for  adjustment.     What, 
under  the  Constitution,  is  the  proper  tribunal  for  the  adjudica- 
tion of  such  controversies?     In  a  dispute  between  nation  and 
State,  who  has  final  jurisdiction;  the  nation,  the  State,  or 
both?     The  wording  of  the  Constitution  gives  it  to  the  nation 
in  clearly  expressed  terms. 

United  States  against  Peters.  To  what  extent  does  national 
authority  go?  To  the  complete  nullification  of  the  State 
enactment,  if  decided  to  be  unwarranted  by  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, and  to  the  reversal  of  the  judgment  of  the  highest 
court  in  the  State.  The  first  case  which  estabhshed  this 
supremacy  of  national  authority  over  the  State  was  that 
known  as  United  States  against  Peters.  The  statement  of 
facts  is  as  follows:  Gideon  Olmstead  and  others,  citizens  of 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        91 

Connecticut,  were  taken  prisoners  by  the  British  and  put  to 
service  on  the  sloop  Active.  The  prisoners  seized  the  vessel 
and  sailed  into  Egg  Harbor.  A  Pennsylvania  armed  vessel 
captured  the  Active  and  towed  it  into  port.  It  was  condemned 
as  the  prize  of  the  Pennsylvania  captors  by  the  Admiralty 
court.  Whereupon  Olmstead,  the  original  captor,  appealed 
to  the  Court  of  Appeals  under  the  confederation,  which 
reversed  the  decree  of  the  Admiralty  court  and  ordered  the 
marshal  to  dispose  of  the  property  and  pay  over  the  proceeds 
to  Olmstead.  Whereupon  the  marshal  disposed  of  the  vessel, 
but  ignored  the  decree  of  the  confederate  authority  and  paid 
over  the  proceeds  to  the  judge  of  the  Admiralty  court,  instead 
of  to  Olmstead  as  ordered.  The  receiving  judge  paid  it  into 
the  State  treasury.  Then  Olmstead  brought  suit  for  the 
recovery  of  the  money  in  the  United  States  courts  (the  Federal 
Constitution  having  been  ratified  and  having  displaced  the 
Articles  of  Confederation  in  the  meantime).  The  legislature 
of  Pennsylvania  at  once  passed  an  act  to  protect  the  parties 
who  had  ignored  the  decree  of  the  Federal  district  court, 
which  decree  had  been  made  in  favor  of  Olmstead.  At  this 
juncture  the  Federal  district  judge,  Peters,  refused  to  execute 
his  own  decree,  whereupon  an  application  was  made  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  compel  the  execu- 
tion of  the  decree. 

What  did  it  decide?  The  decision  was  rendered  by  Chief 
Justice  Marshall  in  1809,  the  case  having  been  in  litigation 
from  1777.  His  language  was  simple,  but  significant.  "If," 
said  he,  "the  legislatures  of  the  several  States  may,  at  will, 
annul  the  judgments  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  and 
destroy  the  rights  acquired  under  those  judgments,  the  Con- 
stitution itself  becomes  a  solemn  mockery;  and  the  nation  is 
deprived  of  the  means  of  enforcing  its  laws  by  the  instrumen- 
taHty  of  its  own  tribunals.  So  fatal  a  result  must  be  depre- 
cated by  all,  and  the  people  of  Pennsylvania  as  well  as  the 
citizens  of  every  other  State  must  feel  a  deep  interest  in  resist- 


92  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

ing  principles  so  destructive  of  the  Union,  and  in  averting 
consequences  so  fatal  to  themselves."  No  language  could  be 
less  ambiguous.  The  supremacy  of  the  national  authority 
was  asserted.  The  conflict  between  the  two  authorities  had 
become  acute.  The  issue  was  stripped  of  all  verbiage.  The 
nation  by  the  command  of  its  highest  tribunal  had  ordered  the 
reversal  of  a  State  decree.  It  had  ordered  the  State  to  perform 
a  specific  duty,  the  payment  out  of  its  treasury  of  a  specific 
sum  to  a  claimant  who  had  been  denied  the  said  sum  by  the 
decree  of  the  State  backed  by  legislative  sanction.  Would  the 
State  obey?  When  the  execution  was  attempted,  a  guard 
with  bayonets  under  the  governor's  order  was  placed  around 
the  houses  of  the  respondents  by  the  order  of  General  Bright, 
commanding  a  brigade  of  mihtia.  The  United  States  author- 
ity proceeded  to  summon  a  posse  of  two  thousand  men  to 
assist  him  in  the  performance  of  his  duties.  The  governor 
made  an  appeal  to  the  President  to  interfere,  that  the  rights  of 
the  State  might  be  secure,  but  Madison  made  it  clear  that  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land  must  be  respected. 

Federal  relations  —  Fletcher  against  Peck.  In  the  very 
next  year  Marshall  reinforced  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the 
national  government  in  the  case  of  Fletcher  against  Peck,  in 
which  he  said,  "But  Georgia  cannot  be  viewed  as  a  single, 
unconnected,  sovereign  power,  on  whose  legislature  no  other 
restrictions  are  imposed  than  may  be  found  in  its  own  consti- 
tution. She  is  a  part  of  a  large  empire;  she  is  a  member  of 
the  American  Union;  and  that  Union  has  a  Constitution  the 
supremacy  of  which  all  acknowledge,  and  which  imposes  limits 
to  the  legislatures  of  the  several  States,  which  none  claim  a 
right  to  pass.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  declares 
that,  "no  State  shall  pass  any  bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto 
law,  or  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts."  Here  it 
was  decided  that  the  rights,  acquired  under  a  law  enacted  by 
the  State  of  Georgia,  could  not  be  denied  by  a  subsequent  law 
which  was  found  unconstitutional.     In  other  words,  whether 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        93 

a  law  passed  by  a  State  legislature  was  constitutional  or  not 
is  a  question  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  court  if  it 
can  be  gotten  into  the  court.  The  famous  Dartmouth  College 
case  developed  the  same  general  principle. 

Federal  relations  —  McCulloch  against  Maryland.  In 
18 1 9  one  of  the  most  far-reacliing  decisions  ever  handed  down 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  nation  was  dehvered  by  Mar- 
shall in  the  Bank  controversy,  known  in  the  Supreme  Court 
Reports  as  ''  McCulloch  against  the  State  of  Maryland."  One 
of  the  branch  Banks  of  the  government  was  estabhshed  at 
Baltimore.  In  1818  the  legislature  of  Maryland  enacted  a  law 
taxing  all  Banks  or  branches  of  Banks.  Upon  the  refusal  of 
the  Federal  branch  Bank  to  pay  the  tax,  its  cashier,  McCulloch, 
was  sued.  The  Maryland  courts  rendered  judgment  in  favor 
of  the  State,  whence  the  case  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  nation.  The  opinion  of  the  Court  was  handed  down  by 
the  chief  justice,  who  said: 

Although  among  the  enumerated  powers  of  the  government  we  do 
not  find  the  word  bank  or  incorporation,  we  find  the  great  powers  to  lay 
and  collect  taxes,  to  borrow  money,  to  regulate  commerce,  to  declare  and 
conduct  a  war,  and  to  raise  and  support  armies  and  navies.  The  sword 
and  the  purse,  aU  the  external  relations,  and  no  inconsiderable  portion 
of  the  industry  of  the  nation  are  intrusted  to  its  government.  The 
power  given,  it  is  the  interests  of  the  nation  to  facilitate  its  execution. 
.  .  .  The  government  which  has  the  right  to  do  an  act,  and  has 
imposed  on  it  the  duty  of  performing  that  act,  must,  according  to  the 
dictates  of  reason,  be  allowed  to  select  the  means;  .  .  .  But 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  not  left  the  right  of  Congress 
to  employ  the  necessary  means  for  the  execution  of  the  powers  conferred 
on  the  government  to  general  reasoning.  To  its  enumeration  of  powers 
is  added  that  of  making  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for 
carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers  and  all  other  powers  vested 
by  this  Constitution  in  the  government  of  the  United  States  or  any  de- 
partment thereof.  .  .  .  That  the  power  to  tax  involves  the  power  to 
destroy ;  that  the  power  to  destroy  may  defeat  and  render  useless  the  power 
to  create;  that  there  is  a  plain  repugnance  in  conferring  on  one  government 
a  power  to  control  the  constitutional  measures  of  another,  which  other, 
with  respect  to  those  very  measures,  is  declared  to  be  supreme  over  that 


94  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

which  exerts  the  control,  are  propositions  not  to  be  denied.  He  contin- 
ued, If  the  States  may  tax  one  instrument  employed  by  the  govern- 
ment in  the  execution  of  its  powers,  they  may  tax  any  and  every  other 
instrument.  They  may  tax  the  mail;  they  may  tax  the  mint;  they  may 
tax  patent  papers;  they  may  tax  the  papers  of  the  custom-house;  they 
may  tax  judicial  process;  they  may  tax  all  the  means  employed  by  the 
government,  to  an  excess  which  would  defeat  all  the  ends  of  government. 
This  was  not  intended  by  the  American  people.  They  did  not  desire  to 
make  their  government  depend  upon  the  States. 

Its  significance.  It  pronounced  the  Maryland  law  uncon- 
stitutional, and  therefore  of  no  effect.  It  also  decreed  that 
Congress  was  vested  with  power  broad  enough,  without  fear 
of  State  obstructions,  to  give  it  ample  authority  to  employ 
whatever  means  in  its  opinion  were  necessary  for  carrying  into 
execution  its  own  ends.  No  dictum  of  Hamilton  ever  went 
further  in  the  right  to  employ  implied  powers  under  the  Con- 
stitution. However,  in  1824,  he  disclaimed  either  the  hroad 
or  strict  interpretation.     He  declared : 

It  has  been  said  that  these  powers  ought  to  be  construed  strictly; 
but  why  ought  they  to  be  so  construed?  Is  there  one  sentence  in  the 
Constitution  which  gives  countenance  to  this  rule?  .  .  .  What  do 
gentlemen  mean  by  a  strict  construction?  If  they  contend  only  against 
that  enlarged  construction  which  would  extend  words  beyond  their  nat- 
ural and  obvious  import,  we  might  question  the  application  of  the  term, 
but  should  not  controvert  the  principle.  ...  If  they  should  con- 
tend for  that  narrow  construction  which  would  cripple  the  govern- 
ment, and  render  it  unequal  to  the  objects  for  which  it  is  declared  to  be 
instituted,  and  to  which  the  powers  given,  as  fairly  understood,  render 
it  competent;  then  we  cannot  conceive  the  propriety  of  this  strict  con- 
struction, nor  adopt  it  as  a  rule  by  which  the  Constitution  is  to  be 
expounded.  .  .  .  Powerful  and  ingenious  minds,  taking  as  pos- 
tulates that  the  powers  expressly  granted  to  the  Union,  are  to  be  con- 
tracted by  construction  into  the  narrowest  possible  compass,  and  that 
the  original  powers  of  the  States  are  retained,  if  any  possible  construction 
will  retain  them,  may,  by  a  course  of  well  digested  but  refined  and  met- 
aphysical reasoning  founded  on  these  premises,  explain  away  the  Con- 
stitution of  our  country  and  leave  it  a  magnificent  structure  to  look  at, 
but  totaUy  unfit  for  use.  ...  To  say  that  the  intention  of  the 
instrument  must  prevail,  that  this  intention  must  be  collected  from  its 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES        95 

words,  that  its  words  are  to  be  understood  in  that  sense  in  which  they  are 
generally  used  by  those  for  whom  the  instrument  was  intended,  that  its 
provisions  are  neither  to  be  restricted  into  insignificance,  nor  extended 
to  objects  not  comprehended  in  them  or  contemplated  by  its  framers, 
is  to  repeat  what  has  been  already  said  more  at  large,  and  is  all  that  can 
be  necessary. 

Rules  of  Interpretation.  The  great  chief  justice  regarded 
it  his  duty  to  respect  the  intention  of  the  makers  of  the  law  in 
its  interpretation.  If  there  is  a  doubt  in  regard  to  its  consti- 
tutionahty,  it  was  always  given  in  favor  of  the  law.  He  also 
desired  a  full  majority  of  the  court  when  such  an  important 
issue  was  before  it.  While  he  employed  the  doctrine  of  im- 
plied powers,  as  is  seen,  he  was  careful  to  remain  within  safe 
grounds,  denying  the  imputation  of  the  employment  of  powers 
not  within  the  plain  import  of  the  law. 

Cohens  against  Virginia.  Two  years  after  the  famous  Bank 
decision,  one  of  the  most  important  findings  of  the  Supreme 
Court  was  made  in  the  case  of  Cohens  against  Virginia.  At 
least  two  questions  were  here  decided:  whether  the  Supreme 
Court  had  jurisdiction  in  a  case  where  a  State  was  a  party,  and 
whether  it  could  revise  the  decision  of  the  highest  State  court. 
He  answered  both  these  points  in  the  afhrmative,  in  a  course 
of  reasoning  similar  to  that  employed  in  preceding  cases.  He 
made  it  clear  that  the  national  government  was  supreme  in  all 
matters  that  pertained  to  the  welfare  of  all  the  people,  and  the 
States  were  unmolested  in  the  exercise  of  powers  in  matters 
of  local  interest,  and  pertaining  to  the  State  alone.  He  also 
made  it  clear  that  the  national  court  must  exercise  an  appellate 
power  over  the  judgments  of  the  State  courts,  "which  may 
contravene  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the  United  States." 

Principles  established.  Thus  during  the  incumbency  of 
John  Marshall  at  the  head  of  the  Supreme  Court,  certain 
specific  questions  were  settled: 

I.  There  are  in  our  system  two  sovereignties,  the  nation 
and  the  State.     Each  is  supreme  in  its  respective  domain. 


96  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

2.  In  case  of  a  dispute  over  the  power  of  each,  or  in  case  of 
a  conflict  of  sovereignties,  the  nation  is  supreme. 

3.  The  nation,  not  the  State,  is  judge  of  what  is  the  law. 
Whether  the  law  is  contrary  to  the  Constitution  or  not,  is  a 
question  for  the  nation. 

4.  The  nation  may  revise  and  reverse  the  decision  of  the 
highest  court  in  the  State. 

5.  The  citizen's  primary  allegiance  is  to  the  nation,  not  to 
the  State. 

6.  The  Constitution,  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  should 
receive  a  liberal  interpretation,  which  is  neither  too  strict  nor 
too  loose  to  reach  the  plain  intent  of  the  law. 

7.  Implied  powers  are  justified  when  the  end  to  be  reached 
is  specified  without  defining  the  means. 

Opinions  of  his  contemporaries.  By  this  body  of  decisions 
which  are  reported  in  thirty- two  volumes,  the  national  govern- 
ment, then  only  theory,  became  a  fact.  John  Adams  was 
justified  in  his  opinion  that  his  proudest  service  to  the  nation 
was  in  his  gift  to  it  of  John  Marshall.  His  marvelous  acute- 
ness  led  Webster  to  say,  ''When  Judge  Marshall  says  '  it  is 
admitted,'  I  am  preparing  for  a  bomb  to  burst  over  my  head 
and  demolish  all  my  points."  His  luminosity  won  for  him  the 
highest  respect  of  the  great  legal  talent  who  practised  before 
the  court.  Story  dedicated  his  "Commentaries  on  the  Con- 
stitution" to  him.  William  Pinkney,  Maryland's  most  brilHant 
lawyer,  declared  that  Marshall  was  born  to  be  the  chief  jus- 
tice of  any  country  in  which  he  lived.  In  1884  Chief  Justice 
Waite  said,  "  Hardly  a  day  now  passes  in  the  court  he  so 
dignified  and  adorned,  without  reference  to  some  decision  of 
his  time,  as  establishing  a  principle  which,  from  that  day  to 
this,  has  been  accepted  as  undoubted  law;  and  when  at  the 
end  of  his  long  and  eminent  career  he  laid  down  his  life,  he 
and  those  who  so  ably  assisted  him  in  his  great  work  had  the 
right  to  say  that  the  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  had 
been  carefully  preserved,  and  wisely  administered." 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES        97 

Marshall  in  the  Burr  case.  During  his  long  career  his 
equable  temper  and  judicial  mind  served  him  in  winning  a 
reputation  for  fairness  and  impartiahty  rarely  met  with  in  the 
work  of  jurisprudence.  Perhaps  one  of  the  greatest  strains  he 
underwent  w^as  the  case  in  which  Burr  was  charged  for  treason. 
There  was  httle  doubt  of  the  guilt  of  this  man.  But  the  indict- 
ment under  which  he  was  tried  alleged  the  act  of  treason  on 
the  island  of  Blennerhassett,  at  a  time  when  it  was  admitted 
that  Burr  was  not  present.  In  view  of  this  the  law  of  evidence 
would  exclude  all  evidence  of  Burr's  doings  elsewhere  than  on 
the  island,  unless  he  was  proved  constructively  present.  This 
could  not  be  done.  Hence  it  was  the  duty  of  the  presiding 
judge  to  exclude  that  part  of  the  testimony  which  concerned 
Burr,  leading  up  to  the  time  and  place  alleged  in  the  indict- 
ment. To  rule  this  out  meant  virtually  to  find  for  the  defend- 
ant. This  was  known  to  be  in  direct  opposition  to  the  wishes 
of  President  Jefferson,  who  was  the  real  prosecutor  in  the  suit, 
as  it  was  also  averse  to  the  wishes  of  the  court.  But  he  chose 
to  act  in  accordance  with  the  law  and  take  the  consequences. 
He  said,  "  That  this  court  dares  not  usurp  power  is  most  true. 
That  this  court  does  not  shrink  from  duty  is  not  less  true. 
No  man  is  desirous  of  placing  himself  in  a  disagreeable  situa- 
tion. No  man  is  desirous  of  becoming  the  subject  of  calumny. 
No  man,  might  he  let  the  bitter  cup  pass  from  him  without 
reproach,  would  drain  it  to  the  bottom.  But  if  he  has  no 
choice  in  the  case,  if  there  is  no  alternative  presented  to  him 
but  a  dereliction  of  duty  or  the  opprobrium  of  those  who  are 
denominated  the  world,  he  merits  the  contempt  as  well  as 
the  indignation  of  his  country,  who  can  hesitate  which  to 
embrace." 

His  place  in  history.  This  heroic  character  who  could  afford 
to  invite  the  criticism  of  the  world  rather  than  transgress  the 
laws  of  equity,  was  admirably  fitted  to  cement  the  Union  and 
thus  to  reinforce  the  Constitution  as  the  instrument  for  the 
establishment   of   justice,  common   defense,  domestic    tran- 


98  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

quillity,  general  welfare,  and  the  security  of  the  blessings  of 
liberty  among  the  people  of  his  country.  During  the  first 
forty  years  of  constitutional  existence,  nationality  owes  more 
to  John  Marshall  than  the  publicist  is  free  to  admit. 


CHAPTER  VI 

A  NEW  ALIGNMENT  OF  PARTIES 

Fatality  of  negation  only.  The  ease  with  which  Jeffer- 
son and  Madison  adopted  the  loose  construction  theory  of 
constitutional  interpretation  and  the  success  attending  their 
administrations  were  complete  answers  to  the  charges  of  the 
Federalists  of  reckless  radicahsm  and  flagrant  incompe- 
tency of  the  party  in  power.  The  fatal  policy  of  negation 
which  led  the  Federalists,  the  avowed  exponents  of  loose  con- 
struction, to  adopt  the  theory  of  strict  construction  in  order 
to  make  opposition  to  the  party  which  had  displaced  them 
was  a  sure  symptom  of  ultimate  disruption.  Any  poHtical 
party  can  better  withstand  a  change  of  policy  than  a  mere 
campaign  of  negation.  To  oppose  what  the  responsible  head 
proposes,  never  enhsts  the  admiration  of  the  conservative 
voter,  who  holds  in  his  hands  the  issue  in  a  campaign.  How- 
ever frank  a  leader  may  be  in  his  change  of  face,  the  public 
must  be  convinced  that  the  change  is  due  to  a  change  of  con- 
ditions, and  not  suggested  by  a  spirit  of  negation  born  of  the 
desire  to  oppose  simply  for  opposition's  sake. 

Progress  of  Federalist  disintegration.  This  constant  oppo- 
sition of  the  Federalists  to  every  measure  proposed  by  the 
Administration,  led  them  to  commit  blunders,  until  they 
drove  from  their  ranks  many  of  their  stanchest  supporters 
and  left  the  party  a  hopeless  minority.  Feeble  attempts  were 
made  to  maintain  an  organization.  The  party  which  had  con- 
trolled the  government  for  the  first  twelve  years  of  its  exist- 

99 


lOO  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

ence,  was  defeated  in  1800  by  eight  votes  in  the  electoral 
college.  It  still  controlled  seven  of  the  sixteen  States,  while  the 
opposition  controlled  six;  three  States  were  divided  between 
the  two.  By  1804,  it  controlled  but  two  States:  namely,  Con- 
necticut and  Delaware,  with  only  fourteen  votes  in  the  elec- 
toral college.  Its  opponents  carried  fifteen  States,  with  162 
votes  in  the  college.  By  1808  the  embargo  policy  of  Jefferson 
had  lost  to  him  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island  and  New  Hamp- 
shire, which,  with  Connecticut  and  Delaware,  gave  Pinckney 
forty-seven  votes  to  122  for  Madison  and  six  for  Clinton.  By 
181 2  New  York  and  New  Jersey  joined  the  Federahst  group 
with  Maryland  divided,  leaving  Madison  with  128,  to  eighty- 
nine  for  Chnton. 

An  interesting  study.  This  increase  of  the  Federalist  vote 
admits  of  an  interesting  explanation.  The  hopeless  defeats 
of  1804  and  1808  induced  the  leaders  to  catch  at  every  seem- 
ing advantage.  Much  opposition  to  Madison  had  developed 
in  his  own  party  and  in  his  own  State,  largely  through  the 
machinations  of  John  Randolph,  who  had  already  begun  his 
famous  fight  against  "King  Caucus."  DeWitt  Clinton  of 
New  York  was  becoming  identified  with  this  opposition,  which 
represented  the  most  powerful  faction  in  his  State.  This  fac- 
tion of  the  Repubhcans  in  New  York  favored  Chnton  for 
President  as  against  IVIadison.  The  question  now  for  the 
hopeless  minority  party  in  the  nation  to  answer  was,  "Shall 
we  put  up  a  candidate  of  our  own,  or  shall  we  join  the  disaf- 
fected element  in  the  RepubHcan  party?"  To  decide  upon 
the  matter  a  convention  of  Federalists  to  be  held  in  New 
York  was  planned.  In  this  convention,  the  first  of  its  kind  in 
our  political  history,  eleven  States  were  represented  by  seventy 
members.  Griswold,  Sedgwick,  Otis,  King  and  Gouverneur 
Morris  were  active  members.  The  convention  decided  to 
support  Chnton,  and  they  put  him  forth  as  the  Federahst 
candidate.  The  adoption  of  a  minority  candidate  is  invari- 
ably a  sure  sign  of  weakness  and  invites  defeat.    It  is  a  tem- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      loi 

porary  expedient  to  forestall  immediate  disruption,  but  is 
surely  followed  by  ultimate  dissolution  unless  corrected  at 
once. 

Complete  disruption.  In  1816  the  Federalists  carried  but 
three  States:  Massachusetts,  Connecticut  and  Delaware,  with 
thirty-four  votes.  Monroe  carried  sixteen  States,  with  183 
votes.  By  1820  the  Federalist  party  was  demohshed,  the 
Democratic  candidate  having  carried  every  State  in  the  Union, 
and  231  votes  out  of  232  in  the  college.  This  period  of  "good 
feeling"  is  taken  as  evidence  of  the  absence  of  party  spirit. 
Such  conclusion  is  unwarranted.  On  the  contrary,  party  feel- 
ing ran  high.  It  only  wanted  leadership  around  which  to 
crystallize.  All  the  old  leaders  were  discredited.  Even  the 
party  name  of  the  feeble  opposition  became  offensive.  Yet 
the  contention  between  pohtical  theories  was  ever  present, 
ready  to  assert  itself  at  the  earliest  opportunity.  The  success- 
ful close  of  the  war  and  the  complete  demoHtion  of  the 
party  in  opposition  afforded  the  people  time  to  develop  a 
domestic  policy.  At  least  three  questions  of  interest  claimed 
the  scrutiny  of  the  statesman :  namely,  (i)  A  fiscal  agency  — 
a  Bank  for  the  purposes  of  circulation;  (2)  The  taxation 
question  for  purposes  of  raising  revenue,  or  the  tariff;  and 
(3)  The  question  of  internal  improvements. 

Symptoms  of  a  new  alignment.  In  the  consideration  of 
these  cjuestions  a  variety  of  opinion  was  expressed.  There 
were  those  who  favored  a  Bank  with  certain  limitations;  others 
who  opposed  any  further  governmental  participation  in  such 
an  institution;  while  there  were  still  others  who  saw  in  the 
establishment  of  such  an  agency  the  much  needed  relief  from 
conditions  always  present  at  the  close  of  a  war.  There  were 
those  who  argued  the  necessity  of  the  inauguration  of  the 
j)olicy  of  protection  of  industries.  They  insisted  the  war 
had  not  only  demanded  a  greater  revenue,  but  it  had 
taught  us  the  value  of  home  industries  and  had  revealed  our 
capacity  to  establish  such  industries  with  the  necessary  pro- 


I02  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

tection.  Others  showed  the  deepest  aversion  to  such  a  poHcy 
and  charged  it  as  discrimination  and  therefore  unconstitu- 
tional. Then  there  were  those  who  were  convinced  that  wis- 
dom would  induce  the  government  to  undertake  a  system  of 
public  improvements  for  the  sake  of  further  development  of 
the  resources  of  the  nation;  such  as  connecting  the  Great 
Lakes  with  the  Hudson  River  by  a  canal,  the  opening  of  the 
great  West  by  a  system  of  road-building,  etc.  There  were 
others  who  agreed  to  the  value  of  such  improvements,  but 
denied  to  the  general  government  the  right  to  undertake  the 
enterprise.  A  careful  analysis  of  the  argument  upon  the  ques- 
tions will  reveal  the  real  points  of  dispute.  It  was  not  a  dif- 
ference of  expedience,  but  of  power.  Those  who  opposed  the 
propositions  to  adopt  the  necessary  means  to  inaugurate  the 
pohcies,  did  not  act  on  the  ground  that  they  were  unneces- 
sary, so  much  as  on  the  ground  that  they  were  unconstitu- 
tional. They  maintained  that  a  National  Bank  doing  business 
within  the  limits  of  a  State  without  the  latter's  consent  was 
not  warranted  by  the  Constitution  and  was  in  violation  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  State.  Similarly,  they  urged  that  the 
operations  of  a  protective  tariff  from  its  very  nature  would 
discriminate  between  persons  and  States;  that  it  was  local,  and 
granted  special  privileges  to  favored  businesses,  and  therefore 
operated  to  favor  the  few  as  against  the  many;  the  manufac- 
turing States  against  those  devoted  to  agriculture.  Similarly, 
they  urged  that  a  system  of  internal  improvements  at  national 
expense  favored  the  States  in  which  the  improvements  were 
made  at  the  expense  of  others.  They  also  alleged  that  an 
application  of  national  funds  to  the  proposed  improvements 
within  the  States  placed  the  State  in  that  degree  under  the 
control  of  the  nation,  and  thereby  interfered  with  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  State. 

Basis  of  alignment.  With  the  annihilation  of  the  Federal- 
ist party  as  an  organized  opposition,  and  with  the  govern- 
ment in  the  hands  of  the  followers  of  Jefferson,  so  firmly 


ORGANIZATION    IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      103 

intrenched  in  power  that  they  feared  no  embarrassment  from 
opposition,  when  party  Hnes  were  entirely  ehminated,  — 
these  three  questions  were  the  occasion  for  a  new  ahgnment 
of  parties.  As  in  other  instances  the  line  of  demarcation  is 
that  which  separates  the  advocates  of  the  Jefferson  theory 
from  those  of  the  Hamilton  theory,  or  the  Virginia  theory 
from  the  IVIassachusetts  theory.  This  basis  of  alignment  is 
recognized  when  it  is  observed  that  the  advocates  of  any  one 
of  these  questions  are  generally  advocates  of  all  the  questions; 
while  the  opponents  of  any  one  are  opponents  of  all.  The 
argument  of  one,  placed  upon  a  constitutional  basis,  served  for 
all;  hence  the  alignment  between  the  national  and  the  Federal 
theory. 

Importance  of  the  Judiciary.  These  contentions  being  placed 
upon  a  constitutional  basis,  and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
nation  being  the  final  tribunal  in  cases  of  law  and  equity 
arising  under  the  Constitution,  subjected  this  court  to  severe 
criticism  from  the  losing  parties  in  the  contest.  Hence  the 
body  of  decisions  handed  down  from  this  court  has  been  more 
effective  in  estabhshing  the  national  theory  than  all  other 
peaceful  events  in  our  history. 

The  Bank.  The  bank  agitation  was  first  in  time.  The 
Bank  was  a  favorite  institution  of  Hamilton.  Perhaps  no 
single  recommendation  of  the  great  financier  was  met  with 
firmer  opposition  than  his  project  of  a  National  Bank  in  1791. 
Its  charter  expired  in  181 1.  The  opposition  grew  with  the 
years,  and  a  renewal  of  the  charter  was  defeated  until  18 16, 
when  the  financial  exigencies  forced  upon  the  party  which 
had  been  its  enemy  the  establishment  of  the  first  National 
Bank  in  the  United  States,  with  a  capitalization  of  $35,000,000, 
and  the  right  to  continue  on  the  same  charter  twenty  years. 
The  central  ofiice  of  the  Bank  was  located  in  Philadelphia. 
Pennsylvania,  through  her  legislature,  declared  by  almost 
a  unanimous  vote  that  an  amendment  should  be  made  to  the 
Federal  Constitution  denying  to  Congress  the  authority  to 


I04  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

establish  any  corporation  like  a  Bank  outside  of  the  District 
of  Columbia.  This  resolution  was  forwarded  to  the  several 
States  with  a  request  to  consider  its  importance.  Four  States 
—  Ohio,  Indiana,  IlHnois  and  Tennessee  —  approved  it,  while 
nine  other  States  disapproved  it. 

In  South  Carolina.  South  Carolina,  whose  conduct  was 
soon  to  attract  the  eyes  of  the  nation,  declared  in  182 1  that, 
"We  apprehend  no  danger  from  the  exercise  of  the  powers 
which  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  confided  to  Con- 
gress, but  beheve  that  in  the  exercise  of  these  powers  that 
body  will  render  them  subservient  to  the  great  purposes  of 
our  national  compact."  It  therefore  refused  concurrence  in 
the  effort  to  secure  the  amendment. 

In  Ohio.  One  of  the  most  interesting  positions  was  that 
of  Ohio,  which,  in  an  elaborate  argumentative  pronouncement, 
affirmed  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions.  The  State 
took  the  position  that  the  true  theory  of  the  government  was 
declared  in  the  Resolutions  of  1798  and  1800.  It  recited  the 
fact  that  these  resolutions  were  an  issue  in  1800,  and  the  people, 
the  final  arbiter  of  law,  had  pronounced  decisively  in  their 
favor.  It  was  asserted  that  between  the  decree  of  the 
Supreme  Court  and  the  decision  of  the  people,  the  legitimate 
source  of  all  powers,  the  former  must  give  way.  It  cited  the 
case  of  Marbury  against  Madison,  which  was  ignored  by 
President  Jefferson,  as  a  precedent  for  like  treatment  of  the 
Bank  decision  in  1819,  in  the  Maryland  case.  It  declared  it 
to  be  the  duty  of  the  general  assembly  of  the  State  to  take 
ulterior  measures  for  asserting  and  maintaining  the  rights  of 
the  State  by  all  constitutional  means  within  their  power.  It 
also  recommended  that  provisions  be  made  forbidding  by  law 
the  keepers  of  the  jails  receiving  into  their  custody  any  person 
committed  at  the  suit  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  or  for 
any  injury  done  to  them.  It  adopted  a  series  of  seven  resolu- 
tions. The  first  one  declared,  "This  assembly  do  recognize 
and   approve   the   doctrines   asserted  by  the  legislatures  of 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      105 

Kentucky  and  Virginia  in  their  resolutions  of  November  and 
December,  1798,  and  January,  1800,  in  respect  to  the  powers 
of  the  governments  of  the  several  States  that  compose  the 
American  States,  and  the  powers  of  the  Federal  government." 
It  further  declared  its  determination  to  tax  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States,  if  located  within  the  State.  It  protested  against 
the  rights  and  "powers  of  the  sovereign  States,''  being  deter- 
mined in  the  courts  of  the  United  States.  In  the  case  of 
Osborn  vs.  United  States  the  authority  of  the  nation  was 
vindicated. 

In  Massachusetts.  With  the  ending  of  this  unfortunate 
episode  the  Bank  was  permitted  to  proceed  with  little  embar- 
rassment. However,  it  was  the  target  for  certain  statesmen. 
One  of  its  implacable  enemies  who  was  sworn  to  destroy  it 
was  Andrew  Jackson.  He  refused  it  any  respite.  His  shafts 
were  frequently  hurled  with  deadly  aim.  When  he  became 
the  head  of  his  party  and  later  the  head  of  the  nation,  he 
opened  his  batteries  upon  the  already  weakening  citadel  and 
denied  all  quarter  until  the  besieged  begged  for  an  armistice, 
which  was  granted  only  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  the  later 
stunning  blow  from  which  the  Bank  never  recovered.  Its 
charter  expired  in  1836,  and  with  its  expiration  the  institution 
ceased  to  exist,  although  it  could  count  in  its  defense  some  of 
the  greatest  statesmen  of  the  time. 

New  leaders.  The  Republican  regime  up  to  1824  brought 
to  the  fore  new  men  who  soon  became  new  political  factors. 
During  this  period  appeared  that  remarkable  triumvirate 
of  penetrating  statesmanship,  political  oratory,  and  partizan 
leadership,  as  represented  by  the  "great  trio,"  Calhoun, 
Webster  and  Clay.  With  such  men  in  the  forum,  unanimity 
in  party  action  was  impossible.  The  pitiable  condition  of  the 
Federalist  party  at  this  time  left  Webster  and  Clay  with  the 
alternative  of  quiet  assent  to  the  policy  of  the  party  in  power 
or  in  open  hostility  to  it  and  the  consequent  repudiation. 
Calhoun's  brilliant  parts  won  for  him  the  confidence  of  those 


io6  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

in  authority  and  opened  the  way  for  preferment.    The  war  of 
1812  had  convinced  him  of  the  need  of  a  strong  navy.    It  also 
allayed  his  opposition  to  the  Bank  proposition  of  1816.    It  also 
led  him  to  adopt  a  system  of  road-building  as  a  means  of 
national  defense.    On  the  same  basis  his  position  in  favoring 
the  pohcy  of  protection  is  explained.     He  declared  in  a  pubhc 
address,  "The  question  relating  to  manufactures  must  not  de- 
pend upon  the  abstract  principle  that  industry  left  to  pursue 
its  own  course  will  find  in  its  own  interests  all  the  encour- 
agement that  is  necessary.     Laying  the  claims  of  manufac- 
turers entirely  out  of  view,  on  general  principles,  without 
regard  to  their  interests,  a  certain  encouragement  should  be 
extended  at  least  to  our  woolen  and  cotton  goods."     His 
argument  for  the  adoption  of  this  pohcy  in  April,  18 16,  was  as 
lucid  as  that  of  Hamilton,  and  as  forcible  as  that  of  Clay;  his 
program  would  have  served  as  a  platform  for  the  Whig  party 
when  it  claimed  the  consideration  of  the  public.    It  is  a  stretch 
of  creduhty  to  believe  that  while  Calhoun  was  urging  the 
adoption  of  the  principle  of  protection  its  ablest  opponent 
was  Daniel  Webster  whose  argument  was  cast  upon  a  high 
constitutional  plane.    He  maintained,  "It  is  the  true  policy 
of  the  government  to  suffer  the  different  pursuits  of  society 
to  take  their  own  course,  and  not  to  give  excessive  bounties  or 
encouragements  to  one  over  the  other.    This,  also,  is  the  true 
spirit  of  the  Constitution.    It  has  not,  in  my  opinion,  conferred 
on  the  government  the  power  of  changing  the  occupations  of 
the  people  of  different  States  and  sections,  and  of  forcing  them 
into  employments."     Like  Jefferson,  with  whom  he  seldom 
agreed,  he  deplored  the  drift  from  the  pursuits  of  agriculture 
to  those  of  manufacture.    "When  the  young  men  of  the  coun- 
try," he  said,  "  shall  be  obliged  to  shut  their  eyes  upon  external 
nature,  upon  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  and  immerse  them- 
selves in  close  and  unwholesome  workshops;  when  they  shall 
be  obliged  to  shut  their  ears  to  the  bleating  of  their  own 
flocks  upon  their  own  hills,  and  the  voice  of  the  lark  that 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      107 

cheers  them  at  the  plow,  that  they  may  open  them  in  dust 
and  smoke  and  steam  to  the  perpetual  whirl  of  spools  and 
spindles  and  the  grating  of  rasps  and  saws,  —  such  a  time  I 
am  not  anxious  to  hasten  in  America." 

The  transitional  period.  By  1824,  when  Calhoun  was 
approaching  the  time  when  he  looked  to  becoming  the  Chief 
of  the  nation  himself,  his  views  on  the  three  dominant  ques- 
tions were  undergoing  marked  alterations.  Within  four  years 
he  became  the  author  of  the  famous  "Exposition,"  the  most 
advanced  State  rights  document  since  the  Kentucky  action 
in  1798.  No  less  radical  and  rapid  was  the  change  in  Webster. 
At  no  time  were  they  together  except  when  they  met  on  the 
political  highway  going  in  opposite  directions.  No  one  would 
seriously  attempt  to  deny  the  charge  of  inconsistency  in  both 
of  these  men.  It  was  open  and  notorious.  They  both  have 
explained  their  positions.  Calhoun  attributed  his  position  to 
the  enthusiasm  of  youth  and  the  influence  of  the  conditions 
following  the  war.  Webster  explains  his  change  as  due  to  the 
change  of  conditions  which  led  his  constituency  to  adopt  the 
restrictive  measures.  The  pronounced  views  which  placed 
these  men  at  the  head  of  two  distinct  policies  were  not  simply 
theoretical,  but  related  to  the  practical  remedy  to  be  apphed. 
It  was  the  startling  announcement  by  Calhoun  that  a  law  of 
the  Federal  government  might  constitutionally  be  ignored 
by  the  State  that  drew  the  hnes.  Here  opens  another  act  in 
the  drama  representing  the  contest  between  the  nation  and 
the  State.  Clay  was  decidedly  with  the  national  poHcy.  Not 
as  decisive  a  theorist  as  either,  he  assumed  the  role  of  peace- 
maker. However,  he  maintained  his  position  of  a  strong 
national  supporter.  He  believed  in  the  constitutional  suprem- 
acy theory  as  against  the  State  rights  theory.  His  advocacy  was 
without  acrimony  and  revealed  the  spirit  of  "give  and  take." 

It  is  frequently  asked  whether  there  is  a  rational  explana- 
tion for  the  attitude  of  South  CaroHna's  position  in  1828, 
1832,  and  1860-65. 


io8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Physiographic  conditions.  The  complexion  of  South  Caro- 
Hna  pohtical  theory  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century 
was  due,  primarily,  to  physiographic  causes;  and,  secondarily, 
to  the  manner  and  character  of  settlements. 

For  many  years  after  the  first  settlement  on  the  coast  at 
Charleston,  the  population  was  confined  to  the  coast  regions, 
including  the  river  bottoms  near  the  coast.  The  expansion 
was  confined  to  that  portion  adapted  to  the  cultivation  of 
rice,  indigo,  tobacco  and  cotton,  although  the  latter  article 
was  not  extensively  cultivated  until  later,  when  the  sea-island 
fiber  was  introduced. 

The  character  of  the  soil  and  climate,  and  the  consequent 
sanitary  conditions,  made  slavery  a  valuable  commodity  for 
this  region.  The  part  of  the  State  composed  of  the  districts 
of  Charleston,  Colleton,  Beaufort,  Williamsburg,  Horry  and 
Marion  was  known  as  the  Low  Country,  while  the  rest  of 
the  colony  was  called  the  Up-country.  The  latter  portion 
was  composed  of  at  least  two  distinctly  different  sections.  The 
soil  of  these  sections  was  thinner  than  that  of  the  Low  Country 
and  not  adapted  to  the  same  uses.  The  Low  Country  invited 
the  large  estates  and  the  system  of  plantation,  while  the 
Up-country  invited  the  small  farm  and  free  labor. 

Influence  of  Settlements.  The  character  of  settlement 
of  the  two  sections  was  significant.  To  the  Low  Country 
came  the  Enghsh  Cavalier,  and  with  him  his  habits.  The 
vast  unoccupied  country  offered  opportunities  to  transplant 
and  estabhsh  in  a  new  world  a  kind  of  English  nobility.  Back 
of  the  endeavor  were  men  distinguished  at  home.  While  it 
is  true  the  plan  did  not  succeed,  a  flourishing  colony  was  estab- 
Hshed,  a  fair  trade  resulted,  a  good  market  for  slave  labor  was 
created,  and  Charleston  became  a  center  of  culture,  with  the 
EstabHshed  Church  the  dominant  factor  in  the  government. 

The  Up-country  was  peopled  not  so  much  by  the  Charles- 
ton kind,  but  by  Scotch-Irish  from  the  North  and  Germans 
from   Pennsylvania,  as  well   as   some  Enghsh    through  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      109 

Charleston  gateway.  Here  a  different  sort  of  enterprise 
flourished;  not  the  large  farm,  hence  not  slave  labor;  not  so 
entirely  agricultural  but  manufacturing;  not  so  much  foreign 
but  more  domestic  commerce.  These  conditions  placed  Httle 
Hmit  upon  the  growth  of  this  section.  Immigration  to  this 
region  was  great.  It  was  not  black  but  wliite.  Soon  the 
Up-country  had  the  greater  population. 

Unequaled  apportionment.  The  government  of  South  Caro- 
lina had  always  been  strongly  centralized.  Originally  it  was 
a  government  largely  by  the  church  over  the  parish  system. 
Until  the  spread  of  population  into  the  back  country,  httle 
disturbance  was  heard.  But  this  rapid  growth  made  the 
question  of  representation  in  the  legislature  a  serious  one. 
When  the  laws  were  made  they  were  made  in  the  interests  of 
the  Low  Country  by  reason  of  its  greater  importance  at  the 
time.  The  old  arrangement  held  over  when  the  new  country 
had  fully  three-fourths  of  the  white  population.  In  other 
words,  the  Low  Country  with  but  28,644  white  people  had 
twenty  senators  and  seventy  representatives,  while  the  Up- 
country  with  111,534  white  people  had  but  seventeen  senators 
and  fifty-four  representatives. 

Equitable  apportionment  attempted.  Every  attempt  to 
remedy  this  unequal  apportionment  was  bitterly  resented 
by  the  Low  Countrymen.  The  Up-countrymen  did  not 
insist  upon  a  representation  based  upon  white  population, 
but  desired  some  concessions.  Finally  a  convention  was 
agreed  upon,  but  the  Up-country  was  allowed  only  forty  del- 
egates out  of  184,  and  most  of  these  were  chosen  from  the 
EngHsh  from  Charleston.  The  plan  adopted  was  wholly  in 
favor  of  the  Low  Country. 

From  1784  on,  the  question  of  separation  was  mentioned. 
State  Sovereignty  was  spoken  of.  EquaHty  of  rights  was 
discussed. 

Finally  a  compromise  was  reached  in  1790.  By  it  Charles- 
ton with  a  white  population  of  15,402  had  seventy-one  mem- 


no  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

bers  in  the  legislature,  while  Ninety-six  with  33,506  white 
had  only  sixteen.  This  plan  gave  the  power  to  that  portion 
of  the  colony  or  State  which  had  always  ruled. 

The  real  dispute.  To  the  election  of  Jefferson  in  1800,  the 
interests  of  South  Carolina  were  mostly  confined  to  local 
matters.  The  conflict  was  between  the  older  and  newer  sec- 
tions of  the  State;  between  the  English  Cavaher,  and  the 
mixture  of  Scotch-Irish,  German,  and  an  effusion  from  the 
Low  Country;  between  the  landlords  who  controlled  the 
rice  plantations  and  the  small  farmer  and  the  household 
manufacturer;  between  the  slave  aristocracy  of  the  Low 
Country  and  the  free  labor  of  the  Up-country.  An  attempt  to 
unify  them  under  one  government  revealed  the  problem.  The 
old  or  Low  Country  section  necessarily  fell  in  the  rear  in  the 
race  of  population.  If  the  plan  of  government  was  to  be  based 
upon  population,  then  the  wild,  bold,  pioneer  of  the  frontier 
would  take  control  of  matters.  The  progressive  new  country 
ultimately  took  control.  Its  first  victory  was  when  it  suc- 
ceeded in  removing  the  capital  from  Charleston  to  Columbia. 

South  Carolina  in  1800  compared  with  itself  in  1824.  It 
appears  that  the  national  theory  held  sway  in  the  State 
much  of  the  time  up  to  1824.  In  December  of  that  year  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  resolved,  "That  all 
power  is  inherent  in  the  people.  .  .  .  That  the  people 
have  conferred  no  power  upon  the  State  legislature  to  impugn 
the  acts  of  the  Federal  government."  This  declaration  shows 
that  the  State  Rights  element  had  not  yet  secured  the  con- 
trol of  the  House.  In  December  of  1825  the  House  declared 
against  both  the  tariff  and  the  pohcy  of  internal  improve- 
ments. It  resolved,  "That  it  is  an  unconstitutional  exercise 
of  power  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  tax  the  citizens  of  one 
State  to  make  roads  and  canals  for  the  citizens  of  another 
State."  It  also  resolved,  "  That  it  is  an  unconstitutional  exer- 
cise of  power  on  the  part  of  Congress,  to  lay  duties  to  protect 
domestic  manufactures." 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES       iii 

Progress  of  State  rights  sentiment.  The  following  year 
Virginia,  acting  on  the  suggestion  of  Jefferson,  reaffirmed  the 
principles  of  the  Resolutions  of  1798,  and  declared  that  the 
government  could  not  constitutionally  levy  taxes  for  the  pur- 
pose of  internal  improvement,  or  for  the  sake  of  protection  of 
manufactures.  In  the  same  resolutions  it  solemnly  declared 
its  attachment  to  the  union  of  the  States.  In  1827  Virginia 
solemnly  protested  against  the  attempt  of  the  government  to 
adopt  a  system  of  internal  improvements,  and  of  protection 
to  manufactures.  The  tariff  bill  failed  of  enactment  in  this 
year  by  the  casting  vote  of  Calhoun,  whereupon  the  friends 
of  the  measure  met  in  convention  at  Harrisburg,  Pa.,  and 
memorialized  Congress  on  behalf  of  domestic  industry  to  lend 
the  necessary  aid.  It  also  appealed  to  the  people  at  large  to 
support  such  a  measure.  This  effort  to  unify  action,  for 
the  accomphshment  of  the  desired  legislation,  aroused  the 
opposition. 

South  Carolina  on  the  tariff  issue.  South  Carohna  became 
the  storm,  center.  Addresses  poured  into  the  legislature  from 
various  parts  of  the  State,  some  of  them  declaring  that  the 
State  was  a  part  of  the  Union  for  the  sake  of  taxation,  and  . 
nothing  else.  The  State  legislature  adopted  resolutions  that 
the  attempted  tariff  legislation  and  the  internal  improvement 
measures  were  unconstitutional.  The  State  took  a  strong 
position  against  the  submission  of  "  any  question  of  disputed 
sovereignty  to  any  judiciary  tribunal."  Resolutions  sym- 
pathizing with  the  efforts  of  South  Carolina  and  condemning 
the  Harrisburg  convention  were  adopted  by  Georgia,  North 
Carolina,  and  Alabama.  All  these  States  took  the  same  view 
of  the  constitutionality  of  the  attempted  legislation.  On  the 
contrary,  Ohio,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island, 
New  York,  Massachusetts,  and  Indiana  defended  the  right 
of  the  government  to  enact  such  laws,  and  most  of  the  States 
named  recommended  an  increase  of  the  tariff.  On  the  igth 
of  May,  1828,  the  tariff  measure,  called  by  Randolph    the 


112  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

"Bill  of  Abominations,"  became  law.  This  legislation  was 
enacted  in  the  face  of  the  loudest  protests  from  the  dominant 
element  in  the  South.  The  storm  centers  became  numerous. 
The  entire  Southern  section,  which  felt  the  drain  of  such 
policy,  was  alarmed.  At  the  assembling  of  the  various  legis- 
latures, the  several  governors  made  the  national  policy  a  mat- 
ter of  special  condemnation,  and  recommended  remedial 
measures.  The  legislatures  of  Virginia,  South  Carohna, 
Georgia,  Alabama  and  Mississippi  entered  solemn  protests. 

The  exposition.  The  one  significant  protest  was  that  of 
South  Carolina,  written  by  Calhoun,  and  known  to  history 
as  the  "Exposition."  This  document  is  the  formal  pro- 
nouncement of  the  doctrine  of  " nullification."  Two  Southern 
States,  Kentucky  and  Louisiana,  defended  the  measures  of 
the  government  against  the  protest  of  their  sister  States.  The 
hand  of  Clay  is  seen  in  the  attitude  of  Kentucky,  and  the 
sugar  interests  determined  the  action  of  Louisiana.  The 
nullification  doctrine  proved  a  misfortune  to  the  opposition 
to  the  tariff  law.  It  was  regarded  irrational  by  many  even  in 
the  State  where  it  had  been  promulgated.  The  fight  came 
on  in  convening  a  convention  to  pronounce  upon  the  feasibil- 
ity of  such  a  remedy. 

Sentiment  divided.  To  order  such  a  convention  it  required 
a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  legislature.  The  Nullificationists  were 
not  strong  enough  to  order  the  convention.  In  the  debate 
the  brilliant  Hayne  shone.  He  was  ably  supported  by  Gov- 
ernor Miller.  These  leaders  headed  the  forces  for  nullifica- 
tion. Senator  Smith  and  Judge  Drayton  led  against  it.  On 
the  defeat  of  the  call  for  a  convention,  the  legislature  adopted 
the  State  rights  clauses  of  the  Resolutions  of  1798.  The 
NulUficationists  quoted  Madison  in  support  of  their  scheme. 
This  brought  out  letters  from  the  aged  statesman  declaring  that 
nullification  had  no  sanction  in  the  resolutions  from  his  pen. 

Activity  in  1830-31.  In  December,  1830,  South  Carolina 
resolved  that  when  a  State  suffering  under  oppressive  law 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     113 

shall  lose  all  reasonable  hopes  of  redress  from  the  wisdom 
and  justice  of  the  Federal  government,  "it  will  be  the  right 
and  duty  of  the  State  to  interpose  in  its  sovereign  capacity, 
for  the  purpose  of  arresting  the  progress  of  the  evil  occasioned 
by  the  said  unconstitutional  acts."  The  acute  situation 
occasioned  by  this  attitude  of  South  Carolina,  was  aug- 
mented by  two  notable  conventions  in  the  latter  part  of 
1 831:  namely,  the  Free-trade  convention  at  Philadelphia, 
which  was  attended  by  delegates  from  fifteen  States;  and 
secondly,  the  Protection  convention  in  New  York,  where  were 
assembled  at  least  five  hundred  friends  of  protection,  repre- 
senting twelve  States.  The  aggressiveness  of  Calhoun,  with 
prestige  born  of  sincerity  of  purpose,  long  and  brilliant  pubhc 
service,  and  his  well-deserved  poHtical  preferment,  both  in 
State  and  nation,  directed  the  mind  of  the  nation  toward  him 
and  toward  the  operations  in  his  State. 

Hayne  and  Webster.  South  Carolina  was  to  attract  new 
interest  in  the  national  capital.  Calhoun  had  placed  in  the 
forefront  as  champion  of  his  favored  theory  of  State  Sover- 
eignty, Robert  Y.  Hayne.  As  the  presiding  officer  of  the 
Senate  Calhoun  had  estimated  the  forces  and  measured  the 
various  abilities  of  his  opponents.  His  great  rival,  Webster,  by 
his  brilliant  career  already  achieved  before  the  Bar  of  the 
Federal  Supreme  Court,  in  the  forum,  and  on  the  platform, 
loomed  up  in  the  near  distance  as  the  nation's  champion  of 
constitutional  supremacy.  In  the  early  part  of  the  year  1830, 
the  occasion  was  offered,  when  the  two  theories  were  to  be 
pitted  against  one  another.  Rarely  were  two  gladiators  in  the 
ring  more  favored  by  circumstances.  The  public  interest  was 
at  white  heat.  The  occasion  could  not  be  more  opportune. 
While  the  question  of  debate  related  to  the  discontinuance  of 
further  sales  of  public  lands,  it  involved  a  comprehensive 
discussion  of  Federal  relations,  and  the  very  foundations  of 
the  ultimate  interpretation  to  be  placed  on  the  Con- 
stitution.   The  issue  was  so  clearly  drawn  that  it  admitted  of 


114  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

no  ambiguity.  The  preliminary  excitement  had  passed  from 
the  Capital  city  to  the  remote  parts  of  the  country.  The 
whole  nation  was  ready  for  the  duel.  The  two  participants 
possessed  all  that  nature  could  do  for  man.  Both  were  in  the 
zenith  of  their  careers.  Behind  them  stood  proud  constitu- 
encies. In  the  unique  character  of  our  system,  each  found 
his  supporters  in  every  part  of  the  country.  However,  it  will 
be  observed  that  Webster  stood  for  the  Hamiltonian  theory, 
wliich  at  this  time  was  identified  with  the  Northern  section  of 
the  country,  while  Hayne  represented  the  Jeffersonian  theory, 
which  was  now  fully  identified  with  the  Southern  section  of 
the  country. 

Jefferson  and  nullification.  Fairness  would  compel  the 
acknowledgment  that  Hayne  went  further  toward  State 
rights  than  the  Virginia  theory  justified.  His  position  would 
be  better  named  if  called  the  Calhoun  theory.  Benton  denies 
that  Jefferson  ever  committed  himself  to  such  a  theory.  While 
the  terms  "null  and  void,"  and  "State  Sovereignty"  were 
common  in  Jefferson's  phraseology,  still  he  cannot  be  said  to 
be  the  real  author  of  the  Calhoun  doctrine,  which  logically 
terminated  in  Secession.  The  Webster-Hayne  debate  cleared 
the  poHtical  sky.  Speculation  gave  way  to  preparation. 
Forces  were  shifted  with  a  view  to  creating  public  senti- 
ment. Mass  meetings  and  conventions  became  the  order  of* 
the  day. 

Episode  of  the  Jefferson  banquet.  The  anniversary  of  the 
birth  of  Jefferson,  April  13,  1830,  was  chosen  by  the  Southern 
friends  as  an  opportune  moment  for  the  promulgation  of  the 
nuUification  doctrine;  they  hoped  thereby  to  strengthen  their 
contention  by  the  force  of  his  great  name  and  influence.  The 
day  was  celebrated  in  the  city  of  Washington.  The  President, 
Vice-President,  and  three  members  of  the  Cabinet  were  invited 
guests.  A  glance  at  the  proposed  toasts,  twenty-four  in  all, 
disclosed  the  hand  of  Nullification.  This  fact,  not  generally 
known  before  the  arrival  of  the  guests,  angered  many  and 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     115 

endangered  the  success  of  the  celebration.  At  the  close  of 
the  regular  toasts,  President  Jackson  was  called  upon,  and  the 
grizzled  hero  of  many  sanguine  fields,  with  the  burdens  of  the 
execution  of  his  country's  laws  upon  him,  volunteered  a  toast, 
routed  the  friends  of  nuHification,  and  electrihed  the  whole 
country,  by  declaring,  ''Our  Federal  Union,  it  must  and  shall 
be  preserved."  Calhoun,  not  to  be  outdone  in  his  determina- 
tion to  secure  for  the  States  what  he  believed  to  be  their  rights, 
volunteered  a  no  less  famous  toast,  namely:  ''The  Union: 
next  to  our  liberty  the  most  dear :  may  we  all  remember  that 
it  can  only  be  preserved  by  respecting  the  rights  of  the  States, 
and  distributing  equally  the  benefit  and  burthen  of  the  Union." 
Thus  the  contention  had  been  transferred  from  the  Senate 
to  the  Executive  department;  from  a  contest  between  sena- 
tors to  one  between  the  President  and  the  Vice-President. 

The  Jackson  letter.  An  invitation  from  friends  of  the 
Union  to  the  President  to  attend  a  Union  dinner,  to  be  given 
at  Charleston,  July  4,  183 1,  called  forth  a  reply  in  which  the 
President  referred  to  the  attitude  of  a  certain  element  in  the 
State  which  threatened  the  Union,  and  intimated  his  deter- 
mination to  enforce  the  laws.  This  letter  came  into  the  hands 
of  the  governor  of  the  State  who  referred  it  to  the  legislature. 
This  body  resented  the  spirit  of  the  letter.  It  formally  in- 
quired," Is  this  legislature  to  be  schooled  and  rated  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States?  "  "  Is  it  to  legislate  under  the 
sword  of  the  Commander-in-Chief?"  It  then  declared,  for 
the  first  time,  the  fatal  doctrine  of  "Secession."  "This  is  a 
confederacy  of  sovereign  States,  and  each  may  withdraw  from 
the  confederacy  when  it  chooses.  Such  proceedings  would 
neither  be  treason  nor  insurrection,  nor  a  violation  of  any 
portion  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  a  right  inherent  in  a  sover- 
eign State,  and  has  not  been  delegated  by  the  States  of  this 
Union." 

Proceedings  in  Congress.  Events  were  rapidly  moving  in 
South  Carolina.    Congress  revised  the  tariff  law  in  July,  1832, 


ii6  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

but  not  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Carohna  delegation,  which 
notified  their  State  that  in  their  judgment  the  protective  poHcy 
had  become  the  settled  policy  of  the  nation  and  all  hope  for 
rehef  had  irrevocably  passed.  Niles,  in  quoting  the  delegation's 
communication  to  their  State,  said:  "They  leave  it  to  you, 
the  sovereign  power  of  the  State,  to  determine  whether  the 
rights  and  liberties  which  you  received  as  a  precious  inheri- 
tance from  an  illustrious  ancestry  shall  be  tamely  surrendered 
without  a  struggle,  or  transmitted  undiminished  to  your  pos- 
terity." 

Proceedings  in  South  Carolina.  The  State's  answer  was  a 
convention  which  met  at  Columbia,  in  November,  1832.  It 
approved  of  the  numerous  expositions  of  Calhoun,  as  published 
in  various  articles,  and  adopted  the  famous  Ordinance  of  Nul- 
lification. The  most  significant  feature  of  this  procedure  was 
that  it  did  not  simply  announce  a  political  theory  as  had  been 
done  so  frequently  by  most  of  the  States  at  one  time  or  another, 
but  entered  the  domain  of  legislation  and  enacted  an  ordi- 
nance with  the  force  of  law,  nullifying  specified  enactments  of 
the  Federal  government.  It  denied  to  any  Federal  officer  any 
authority  to  enforce  the  Federal  enactment  specified,  and 
declared  it  the  duty  of  the  legislature  of  the  State  to  pass  nec- 
essary measures  to  enforce  the  ordinance.  It  enacted  that  no 
question  arising  from  the  interpretation  of  this  ordinance  shall 
be  appealed  to  the  Federal  courts.  It  also  required  all  persons 
(except  members  of  the  legislature)  now  holding  office  in  the 
State,  either  civil  or  mihtary,  to  take  an  oath  to  support  the 
ordinance,  and  further  declared  that  all  persons  to  be  elected 
to  office  must,  before  they  can  enter  upon  their  duties,  take 
the  same  oath.    This  instrument  closed  as  follows: 

And  we,  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  to  the  end  that  it  may  be  fully 
understood  by  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  the  people  of  the 
co-States,  that  we  are  determined  to  maintain  this,  our  ordinance  and 
declaration,  at  every  hazard,  do  further  declare  that  we  will  not  submit 
to  the  application  of  force,  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  government,  to 


ORGANIZATIOX  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES       117 

reduce  this  State  to  obedience;  but  that  we  will  consider  the  passage  by 
Congress,  of  any  act  authorizing  the  employment  of  a  military  or  naval 
force  against  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  her  constituted  authorities  or 
citizens,  or  any  act  abohshing  or  closing  the  ports  of  this  State,  .  .  . 
or  any  other  act  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  government  to  coerce  this 
State,  shut  up  her  ports,  destroy  or  harass  her  commerce  or  to  enforce 
the  acts  hereby  declared  null  and  void,  otherwise  than  through  the  civil 
tribunals  of  the  country,  as  inconsistent  with  the  longer  continuance  of 
South  Carolina  in  the  Union;  and  that  the  people  of  this  State  will  thence- 
forth hold  themselves  absolved  from  all  further  obligation  to  maintain  or 
preserv^e  their  pohtical  connection  with  the  people  of  the  other  States, 
and  will  forthwith  proceed  to  organize  a  separate  government,  and  to  do 
all  other  acts  and  things  which  sovereign  and  independent  States  may  of 
right  do. 

State  against  nation.  It  remained  to  be  seen  whether  the 
State  legislature  would  attempt  to  carry  into  effect  the  fatal 
pohcy.  All  doubts  were  soon  removed,  for  in  three  days  the 
legislature  reassembled  and  proceeded  to  enact  necessary 
provisions  to  make  the  ordinance  effective.  Thirteen  days 
after  the  action  of  the  legislature,  the  proclamation  of  Presi- 
dent Jackson,  announcing  his  determination  to  enforce  the 
laws  of  the  government,  was  heralded  to  an  over-excited 
public.  This  great  State  document  should  rank  with  the 
famous  decisions  of  Judge  Marshall. 

The  legislature  rephed  to  the  President's  proclamation  in 
a  lengthy  series  of  resolutions,  denying  to  him  the  authority 
assumed  in  his  decree,  and  reaffirmed  the  doctrine  of  Secession. 
It  resolved: 

That  each  State  of  the  Union  has  the  right,  whenever  it  may  deem  such 
a  course  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  its  liberties  or  vital  interests, 
to  secede  peaceably  from  the  Union,  and  that  there  is  no  constitutional 
power  in  the  general  government,  much  less  in  the  Executive  department 
of  that  government,  to  retain  by  force  such  State  in  the  Union. 

It  further  declared  that  the  primary  allegiance  of  the  citi- 
zen was  to  the  State.  It  charged  the  President  with  coun- 
tenancing the  conduct  of  Georgia  when  that  State  was 
experiencing  the  same  trouble.     It  also  denounced  his  present 


ii8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

attitude,  if  submitted  to,  as  tending  to  the  establishment  of 
monarchy,  and  ended  by  resolving  that  "the  State  will  repel 
force  by  force,  and  relying  upon  the  blessings  of  God,  will  main- 
tain its  Hberties  at  all  hazards."  On  the  following  day  the 
legislature  adopted  a  resolution  caUing  for  a  convention  of  all 
the  States  to  consider  the  manner  of  concerted  action  to 
secure  their  rights.  The  President  requested  of  Congress 
the  necessary  powers  to  deal  with  the  new  emergency.  In 
response  the  "Force  bill,"  denominated  by  its  enemies  as  the 
"Bloody  bill,"  was  passed  by  Congress.  This  bill  enabled 
the  President  to  enforce  the  laws  in  the  threatening  State. 
General  Scott  with  a  military  force  had  been  ordered  to  the 
State  and  two  war  vessels  were  also  sent  to  the  seat  of 
disturbance. 

Conduct  of  States.  However,  the  decisive  stroke,  which 
carried  death  to  the  scheme,  was  the  attitude  of  the  several 
States  toward  the  convention  proposed  by  the  nullification 
leaders.  Three  States,  Ohio,  Massachusetts  and  Delaware 
repHed  that  such  a  convention  was  inexpedient.  Two  States, 
both  Southern,  Georgia  and  Alabama,  favored  a  convention 
of  Southern  States  to  propose  amendments  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  denounced  the  scheme  of  nulHfication.  Six  States, 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvaina,  Ohio,  Maryland  and 
Kentucky,  denounced  the  Secession  proposition.  The  response 
to  the  proposition  for  a  convention  was  almost  unanimous  in 
condemnation  of  the  policy  of  South  Carolina.  The  position 
of  the  Southern  States  was  significant.  Georgia  resolved, 
"That  we  abhor  the  doctrine  of  nullification  as  neither  a 
peaceful  nor  a  constitutional  remedy,  but  on  the  contrary, 
as  tending  to  civil  commotion  and  disunion." 

Alabama  declared  it  to  be  "unsound  in  theory  and  danger- 
ous in  practise."  It  further  declared,  "  That  as  a  remedy  it  is 
unconstitutional  and  essentially  revolutionary,  leading  in  its 
consequences  to  anarchy  and  civil  discord,  and  finally  to  the 
dissolution  of  the  Union." 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      119 

North  Carolina  solemnly  declared  "a  devoted  attachment 
to  the  Federal  Union,  beheving  that  on  its  continuance 
depend  the  liberty,  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  United 
States."  It  resolved  that  nullification  "is  revolutionary  in  its 
character,  subversive  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
and  leads  to  a  dissolution  of  the  Union." 

Mississippi  vindicated  the  action  of  the  President  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  doctrines  of  South  Carolina.  It  put  itself  on  record 
"We  oppose  the  nullification.  We  regard  it  as  heresy,  fatal 
to  the  existence  of  the  Union.  It  is  resistance  to  law  by  force, 
it  is  disunion  by  force,  it  is  civil  war." 

Virginia  took  a  middle  ground.  She  affirmed,  "That  they 
continue  to  regard  the  doctrines  of  State  Sovereignty  and 
State  rights,  as  set  forth  in  the  Resolutions  of  1798,  and  sus- 
tained by  the  report  thereon  of  1799,  as  a  true  interpretation 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  powers 
therein  given  to  the  general  government;  but  they  do  not 
regard  them  as  sanctioning  the  action  of  South  CaroHna, 
indicated  in  her  said  ordinance;  nor  as  countenancing  all  the 
principles  assumed  by  the  President  in  his  proclamation, 
many  of  which  are  in  direct  conflict  with  them." 

Crisis  passed.  It  is  evident  that  the  gravity  of  the  situ- 
ation was  greatly  reheved  by  the  attitude  of  the  several 
Southern  States.  South  Carolina  appeared  to  be  making 
preparations  for  an  armed  conflict.  Senator  Hayne  had  left 
the  Senate  to  become  the  executive  head  of  his  State,  and  Vice- 
President  Calhoun  had  left  his  position  to  accept  an  election 
to  the  Senate,  preferring  to  be  a  leader  of  that  body  in  leg- 
islation to  being  a  mere  figurehead  as  its  presiding  ofiicer. 
Indications  were  plentiful  that  Civil  War  was  about  to  break. 
At  this  juncture  the  peculiar  abilities  of  Henry  Clay  came  into 
play  and  by  the  means  of  compromise,  for  which  he  was  so 
admirably  fitted,  the  crisis  was  passed.  Thus  closed  the  third 
act  in  the  drama  enacted,  on  the  political  stage  with  the  gen- 
eral government  and  the  States  as  the  star  actors. 


CHAPTER   VII 
NOMINATION  PROCESSES 

Unwritten  law  in  the  United  States.  It  is  a  popular  error 
to  presume  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  one 
of  written  law.  Unlike  England  it  has  a  written  Constitution 
but  Hke  the  mother,  the  daughter  heeds  the  voice  of  custom 
and  many  of  her  operations  have  no  other  sanction.  Most  if 
not  all  of  the  party  machinery  of  the  government  has  no  other 
force  than  custom. 

Throughout  the  history  of  the  country,  various  methods 
have  been  employed  for  placing  the  machinery  of  the  govern- 
ment in  operation.  The  history  of  these  methods  admits  of  an 
interesting  investigation.  From  the  earliest  times  the  colonists 
assuming  a  sort  of  democratic  form  of  government  —  espe- 
cially those  colonies  which  adopted  the  charter  government  — 
had  occasion  to  observe  some  method  of  selecting  officers  to 
fill  the  various  positions.  In  New  England,  the  domicile  of 
the  "  town  meeting,"  no  difficulty  was  encountered.  These 
democratic  centers  Hke  so  many  nerve  centers  served  the 
purpose,  not  only  for  the  development  of  political  enthusiasm, 
but  for  the  organization  and  direction  of  it.  The  first  real 
important  step  in  the  organization  was  the  selection  of  the 
man  to  fill  the  office. 

Account  of  an  early  caucus.     One  of  the  earliest  accounts 

of  that  process  is  from  the  racy  pen  of  John  Adams,  in  his 

diary  in  1763.    He  says: 

120 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES        121 

This  day  learned  that  the  Caucus  Club  meets,  at  certain  times,  in 
the  garret  of  Tom  Dawes,  the  adjutant  of  the  Boston  Regiment.  He 
has  a  large  house,  and  he  has  a  movable  partition  in  his  garret  which  he 
takes  down,  and  the  whole  club  meets  in  one  room.  There  they  smoke 
tobacco  till  you  cannot  see  from  one  end  of  the  garret  to  the  other. 
There  they  drink  flip,  I  suppose,  and  there  they  choose  a  moderator,  who 
puts  questions  to  the  vote  regularly;  and  selectmen,  assessors,  collectors, 
wardens,  fire-wards,  and  representatives  are  regularly  chosen  before 
they  are  chosen  in  the  town.  Uncle  Fairfield,  Story,  Ruddock,  Adams, 
Cooper,  and  others  are  members.  They  send  committees  to  wait  on 
the  Merchants'  Club,  and  to  propose  and  join  in  the  choice  of  men  and 
measures.  Captain  Cunningham  says  they  have  often  solicited  him  to 
go  to  those  caucuses.    They  have  assured  him  benefit  in  his  business. 

This  interesting  description  throws  light  upon  the  peculiar 
pohtical  activity  of  that  section  of  the  country. 

In  vogue  in  New  England  at  an  early  date.  It  is  asserted 
by  authority  that  this  caucus  method  was  in  vogue  as  early 
as  1724,  when  it  is  said  that  the  father  of  Samuel  Adams  and 
twenty  others  frequently  met  in  caucus  and  laid  their  plan 
for  introducing  certain  persons  into  places  of  trust  and  power. 
"  When  they  had  settled  it  they  separated  and  used  each  to 
their  particular  influence  with  his  own  circle.  He  and  his 
friends  would  furnish  themselves  with  ballots,  including  the 
names  of  the  persons  fixed  upon,  which  they  distributed  in 
the  days  of  the  election.  By  acting  in  concert,  together  with 
a  careful  and  extensive  distribution  of  ballots,  they  generally 
carried  the  elections  to  their  own  mind.  It  was  in  like  manner 
that  Samuel  Adams  first  became  a  representative  of  Boston." 
The  caucus  was  a  favorite  method  of  the  centers  up  to  the 
point  when  it  was  declared  unrepresentative  and  dictatorial. 
The  growth  of  numerous  centers  within  the  same  Common- 
wealth necessitated  some  plan  which  sought  unity  in  action. 

Conditions  in  Pennsylvania.  The  wide  extent  of  territory 
of  a  single  State  like  Pennsylvania,  and  the  sparsely  settled 
condition  of  the  States,  generally,  necessitated  some  other 
method.     Frequently    conferences  of    self-appointed  leaders 


122  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

in  the  localities  were  held.  Later  a  system  of  correspondence, 
not  unlike  the  ''Committees  of  Correspondence"  in  Massachu- 
setts and  Virginia,  was  begun.  This  plan  was  adopted  in 
Pennsylvania  to  secure  some  concert  of  action  between  the 
East  and  the  far-away  West.  With  the  growth  of  the  popula- 
tion better  plans  came  into  operation.  Down  to  the  inaugu- 
ration of  the  national  government,  no  well-defined  method  was 
in  general  use  other  than  that  mentioned. 

Some  method  of  nomination  imperative.  When  the  Con- 
stitution went  into  effect,  its  provisions  for  numerous  officers 
and  its  inferences  relative  to  yet  more  numerous  State  officers 
demanded  a  plan  for  putting  before  the  voter  the  name  of 
the  aspirant  for  office.  There  were  few  newspapers  in  the 
centers  of  population.  A  newspaper  could  not  exist  outside 
these  centers.  In  fact  some  of  the  States  could  not  support  a 
paying  circulation.  Numerous  experiments  were  made  with 
the  same  unhappy  result.  Up  to  1800  most  of  the  newspapers 
were  controlled  by  adherents  to  the  Federalist  party.  In  that 
year  some  publications  were  started  in  the  interest  of  the 
Repubhcans.  Through  them  local  party  organizations  were 
effected  co-extensive  with  the  poHtical  units.  In  a  short  time 
by  the  effectiveness  of  the  local  political  machinery  of  \  the 
Repubhcans,  the  opponents  of  the  recent  powerful  Federal- 
ists carried  every  State  but  two  in  the  National  campaign. 

Party  machinery  a  natural  creation  in  the  United  States. 
The  American  system  was  designed  to  accomplish  such  ends. 
The  numerous  national  offices  to  be  ffiled,  and  the  various 
State,  county,  municipal  and  township  offices  which  are  filled  by 
the  citizens  in  the  frequent  elections,  guaranteed  a  continuous 
campaign  throughout  the  entire  nation.  At  that  time  neces^ 
sary  enthusiasm  and  unity  of  action  were  the  chief  needs. 
How  to  secure  them  was  a  matter  of  concern  to  the  public- 
spirited  citizen.  This  concern  was  satisfied  by  the  local  polit- 
ical machinery.  Through  the  various  local  organizations 
and  the  estabhshment  of  party  organs  in  the  main  centers  of 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES 


123 


population,  as  mediums  of  communication,  the  whole  country 
was  enlisted  in  one  common  cause,  and  party  interest  became 
all-pervasive.  By  these  means  the  whole  people  became  iden- 
tified with  one  or  the  other  party,  and  the  voters  for  days  pre- 
ceding election  day  were  arrayed  against  one  another  like 
the  forces  of  war  approaching  a  battle-field.  Each  side  chose 
its  leaders  with  the  one  purpose  —  victory.  The  line  of  battle 
was  studied  with  the  same  purpose.  The  wide  extent  of  ter- 
ritory and  the  variety  of  interests  involved,  and  the  necessity 
of  united  effort  made  the  selection  of  the  standard-bearer 
one  of  the  most  important  matters  of  the  campaign.  Espe- 
cially was  this  true  in  the  case  of  the  election  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  for  every  election  since  the  second  election  of 
Washington  was  the  occasion  of  a  spirited  contest  between 
parties.  This  contest  extended,  to  the  remote  parts  of  the 
country  and  involved  every  State  of  the  Union  and  all  parts  of 
each  State. 

Selection  of  candidate  important.  The  manner  of  selecting 
a  leader,  who  would  unite  all  the  forces  in  the  party,  was  of  no 
small  consequence.  The  quaUty  of  strength  required  in  one 
section  might  prove  weakness  in  another.  The  wide  separa- 
tion of  the  remote  parts  of  the  country  was  a  constant  danger 
of  sectional  disputes.  The  most  rational  plan  suggested  for 
solution  was  the  "congressional  caucus."  It  was  thought 
that  the  representatives  fresh  from  the  people,  in  combination 
with  the  senators,  would  best  know  the  wishes  of  the  people 
and  most  fairly  represent  them.  Their  function  as  legislators 
required  their  commingling  at  the  seat  of  government  and 
enabled  them  to  consult  freely  with  regard  to  the  welfare  of 
the  country  as  no  other  body  of  citizens  could  do.  These  con- 
siderations, in  conjunction  with  the  fact  that  every  State  was 
represented  presumably  by  its  best  men,  led  to  the  selection 
of  the  presidential  candidate  by  this  "congressional  caucus." 
Washington  was  selected  by  universal  consent.  In  1792 
there  was  expressed  quite  a  universal  desire  that  he  would 


124  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

accept  a  re-election,  which  he  was  eventually  persuaded  to  do. 
Not  until  the  French  sympathizers  organized  their  opposition 
to  Washington's  poHcy  of  neutrality  did  party  spirit  assume 
the  attitude  of  strenuous  opposition. 

Original  purpose  of  the  electoral  college.  At  first  it  was 
intended  that  the  men  chosen  to  constitute  the  electoral  col- 
lege should  employ  discretion  in  their  choice  of  the  President. 
That  reduced  the  general  interest  in  the  election,  since  the 
voter  was  not  casting  his  vote  for  the  President,  but  rather 
for  a  delegate  who  was  to  select  the  President.  This  fact  will 
account  in  part  for  the  very  light  vote  cast  for  the  electors  in 
the  early  elections.  Elbridge  Gerry,  a  Jeffersonian  Republican, 
wrote  to  Jefferson,  stating  his  desire  to  vote  for  him  for  Presi- 
dent, but  from  the  fear  that  he  (Jefferson)  might  receive  more 
votes  than  Adams  and  thus  defeat  the  latter,  he  would  be 
compelled  to  withhold  his  vote.  Here  is  the  beginning  of  the 
practise  of  the  unwritten  law,  which  is  universally  observed 
to-day,  namely,  to  allow  the  people  to  name  the  candidate  for 
whom  the  electoral  college  are  to  vote.  This  custom  trans- 
ferred the  interest  from  the  voting  of  the  electoral  college  to 
the  popular  election  of  the  electors,  which  is  in  reality  the 
election  of  the  President. 

First  two  elections.  It  appears  that  some  uneasiness  was 
felt  in  the  second  election,  over  the  possibility  of  Adams  run- 
ning ahead  of  Washington,  thus  making  the  former  President 
and  the  latter  Vice-President.  There  is  little  doubt  that 
Hamilton  had  correspondents  in  two  or  three  States,  trying 
to  forestall  such  a  result,  advising  the  withholding  of  the  vote 
from  Adams  to  insure  his  falling  below  Washington.  The 
result  showed  the  following: 

Washington,  the  entire  vote,  132;  Adams,  77;  Clinton,  50; 
Jefferson,  4;  Burr,  i. 

Third  election.  The  general  belief  that  Washington  would 
decline  a  third  election  was  confirmed  by  his  "Farewell 
Address,"  in  September,  1796.    It  was  conceded  that  Adams 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      125 

would  be  the  Federalist  candidate  to  succeed  Washington  and 
that  Jefferson  would  be  the  Anti-Federahst  or  Republican 
candidate.  While  Hamilton  did  not  oppose  Adams,  it  is  well 
known  that  he  personally  preferred  another  candidate.  Ham- 
ilton foresaw  a  party  struggle,  and  he  feared  the  ability  of 
Adams  to  win  over  Jeft'erson  and  such  failure  in  his  mind  was 
to  be  avoided  at  all  hazards. 

Congressional  caucus.  A  group  of  FederaHsts,  which  has 
been  denominated  the  "Individual  Cabal,"  decided  that 
Adams  should  be  the  Federalist  candidate.  This  is  called  by 
some  authority  a  congressional  caucus,  but  it  scarcely  deserves 
that  name.  The  congressional  caucus  is  really  a  Republican 
institution.  It  began  in  the  year  1800,  when  in  Marche's 
boarding-house  in  Philadelphia,  forty-three  Republican  mem- 
bers of  Congress  met  to  decide  upon  the  running  mate  for 
Jefferson.  It  was  conceded  that  Jefferson  would  be  the  can- 
didate for  President  and  there  is  no  record  of  an  action  to 
formally  nominate  him.  But  the  man  for  second  place  was 
a  matter  of  much  interest.  At  this  time  there  were  thirty 
senators,  and  one  hundred  and  five  representatives,  a  majority 
of  whom  were  FederaHsts. 

Burr  as  a  candidate.  In  the  previous  election  Adams  de- 
feated Jefferson  by  three  votes.  It  is  interesting  to  note  the 
vote.  Adams  and  Pinckney  were  the  Federalist  candidates. 
The  former  received  seventy-one  votes,  and  the  latter  fifty- 
nine.  Jefferson  and  Burr  were  the  Republican  candidates. 
Jefferson  received  sixty-eight  votes,  and  Burr  thirty.  The 
result  showed  a  weakness  in  the  candidacy  of  Burr.  His 
own  State  went  for  Federalist  candidates,  and  Jefferson's 
State  cast  its  vote  for  Samuel  Adams  for  second  place,  giving 
Burr,  Jefferson's  running  mate,  but  one  vote.  This  treatment 
of  Burr  by  Jefferson's  own  State  was  ground  for  suspicion, 
and  Burr  resented  it. 

Hamilton  and  Adams.  In  1800  an  attempt  was  made  to 
switch  Adams  on  behalf  of  C.  C.  Pinckney  of  South  Carolina. 


126  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

A  letter,  written  by  Hamilton,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Repub- 
lican leaders.  This  celebrated  letter  was  a  criticism  of  the 
conduct  of  Adams  as  President  of  the  United  States.  On  the 
advice  of  Colonel  Burr,  extracts  from  it  were  sent  to  Duane, 
editor  of  the  Aurora,  who  at  once  published  them.  It  appears 
that  Hamilton,  who,  to  clear  himself  of  the  charge  of  dis- 
loyalty, pubhshed  his  letter  in  full  with  comments,  foresaw  the 
inability  of  Adams  to  carry  South  Carolina  and  was  ready 
to  make  concession  for  the  sake  of  the  election  of  Pinckney, 
although  it  might  be  at  the  expense  of  one  of  the  candi- 
dates. He  seemed  to  think  that  Pinckney  could  carry  South 
Carolina  with  Jefferson,  but  not  with  Adams.  In  that  event 
the  election  might  result  in  Pinckney  and  Jefferson,  with 
the  former  in  the  lead,  which  would  be  a  Federahst  vic- 
tory. It  is  asserted  that  the  premature  pubhcation  of  the 
extracts  caused  the  loss  of  South  Carolina  to  the  Federahsts. 
The  vote  stood:  Jefferson,  seventy-three;  Burr,  seventy-three; 
Adams,  sixty-five;  Pinckney,  sixty-four.  The  eight  votes  of 
South  Carolina  decided  the  contest. 

The  election  of  Jefferson.  This  tie  vote  between  the  two 
RepubHcan  candidates  was  the  first  instance  of  failure  to 
elect  a  President.  It  threw  the  election  into  the  House  of 
Representatives,  in  pursuance  of  the  Federal  Constitution. 
On  such  occasions  the  vote  is  taken  by  States,  each  State 
having  but  one  vote.    On  the  first  ballot  the  vote  stood: 

Jefferson  —  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  Kentucky,  Georgia,  Tennessee  —  eight. 

Burr  —  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
Connecticut,  Delaware,  and  South  Carolina  —  six. 

It  will  be  observed  that  all  the  Federalist  States,  except 
New  Jersey,  supported  Burr  in  the  House,  \f  hile  all  the  Repub- 
lican States,  except  South  Carolina,  supported  Jefferson. 
Vermont  and  Maryland  divided  their  votes. 

On  the  final  ballot  Vermont  and  Maryland  were  counted 
foi:  Jefferson,  which  gave  him  ten  votes,  while  Delaware  voted 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      127 

blank,  and  South  Carolina  gave  no  vote,  which  left  Burr  with 
but  four  votes. 

Out  of  the  106  members  of  the  House,  during  the  balloting, 
but  fifty-one  voted  for  Jefferson  at  any  one  ballot. 

Caucuses  in  1804.  As  early  as  1802,  it  was  believed  that 
Rufus  King  would  be  a  presidential  candidate.  At  a  public 
dinner  in  Washington  it  was  decided  to  support  King  and 
Pinckney.  Later,  it  was  agreed  that  Pinckney  was  to  stand 
first,  or  be  the  candidate  for  President,  and  King  for  Vice- 
President.  The  Republican  caucus  took  place  in  Washington, 
in  February,  1804.  It  was  called  to  select  a  candidate  for 
Vice-President.  There  was  no  opposition  to  the  candidacy  of 
Jefferson.  There  was  determined  opposition  against  Burr,  led 
by  Madison,  Gallatin  and  others,  of  whom  no  one  was  more 
opposed  to  him  than  Jefferson.  There  were  108  members 
present  in  the  caucus.  Clinton  received  forty-seven  votes,  a 
majority  of  those  voting,  and  thus  became  the  regular  caucus 
candidate  on  the  ticket  with  Jefferson. 

Election  of  1804.  The  result  of  the  election  had  a  bad 
effect  upon  the  Federalist  party.  It  obtained  only  fourteen 
votes  for  its  candidate,  while  its  opponents  had  one  hundred 
and  sixty-two.  It  was  at  this  juncture  that  the  Federalist 
conspiracy  was  concocted  for  the  separation  from  the  Union 
of  the  New  England  States.  And  it  was  in  this  connection 
that  the  leadership  of  Burr  was  sought  to  win  the  State  of 
New  York  to  the  support  of  that  ill-advised  experiment.  For 
some  time  it  was  doubted  whether  the  remnant  of  the  party 
should  put  forth  a  candidate  in  the  election  in  1808.  There 
was  some  opposition  developing  against  the  Administration 
of  Jefferson,  especially  on  his  embargo  policy,  which  promised 
the  opposition  some  success,  especially  in  the  State  elections. 
Governor  Gore,  George  Cabot  and  others,  were  appointed  as 
a  committee  of  correspondence  to  unify  opinion  upon  plans 
to  be  adopted.  Finally  it  was  decided  to  run  Pinckney  and 
King,  the  candidates  who  headed  the  party  in  the  last  election. 


128  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

This  decision  was  not  reached  by  a  caucus,  but  by  correspond- 
ence. 

The  first  real  caucus.  The  Repubhcan  caucus  in  1808  is 
known  in  history  as  the  first  regular  caucus  for  the  selection 
of  a  presidential  candidate.  This  is  explained  by  the  charac- 
ter of  its  call.  Stephen  R.  Bradley  of  Vermont  had  presided 
at  a  Republican  caucus,  which  had  authorized  him  to  call 
subsequent  caucuses.  His  call  was  couched  in  authoritative 
language.  It  ran,  "  In  pursuance  of  the  powers  vested  in  me, 
as  president  of  the  late  convention  of  the  Republican  members 
of  both  Houses  of  Congress,"  etc.  He  called  a  caucus  of  the 
Republican  members  in  the  Senate  chamber  for  the  purpose 
of  nominating  candidates  for  President  and  Vice-President. 
Bitter  opposition  to  the  call  at  once  developed.  Virginia  was 
the  seat  of  the  fiercest  opposition.  Gray,  a  congressman  from 
that  State,  denounced  the  arrogance  of  Bradley.  He  declared: 
"  That  I  cannot  consent,  either  in  an  individual  or  a  represent- 
ative capacity,  to  countenance,  by  my  presence,  the  midnight 
intrigues  of  any  set  of  men  who  may  arrogate  to  themselves 
the  right  which  belongs  only  to  the  people,  of  selecting  proper 
persons  to  fill  the  important  offices  of  President  and  Vice- 
President."  This  vigorous  opposition  was  seconded  by  John 
Randolph.  It  spread  far  and  wide.  Many  influential  men  of 
New  York  denounced  it.  However,  the  caucus  was  held  at 
the  stated  time  with  ninety-four  members  in  attendance. 
Five  of  them  refused  to  take  part  in  the  proceedings.  There 
was  no  representative  from  Delaware.  Only  one  member 
from  New  York  was  present.  Not  half  of  the  Pennsylvania 
representation  attended.  The  ballot  for  candidates  for  Presi- 
dent stood:  Madison,  eighty-three;  Monroe,  three;  and  Clinton 
three.  The  entire  vote  was  cast  for  Clinton  for  Vice-Presi- 
dent, after  a  complimentary  vote  had  been  given  to  Langdon 
of  New  Hampshire,  Dearborn  of  Massachusetts,  and  John 
Quincy  Adams  of  the  same  State.  Out  of  the  136  Republican 
members  of  this  Congress,  eighty-nine  took  part  in  the  caucus, 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      129 

and  eighty-three  united  upon  Madison  as  the  successor  of 
Jefferson. 

Randolph's  opposition.  Randolph,  of  Roanoke,  was  by- 
nature  inchned  to  oppose  whatever  those  in  authority  were 
attempting  to  do;  hence  his  strenuous  opposition  to  Jefferson 
in  his  second  administration,  and  his  machinations  to  defeat 
the  President's  purpose  to  choose  his  own  successor.  It  was 
well  known  for  months  before  the  end  of  his  second  term  that 
Jefferson  desired  Madison  to  succeed  him.  Randolph's  opposi- 
tion took  shape  in  the  candidacy  of  Monroe.  This  was  a  dip- 
lomatic stroke,  as  the  President  could  not  well  support  one 
above  the  other.  Both  were  not  only  personal  friends  of  the 
President  but  were  recipients  of  political  favors,  which  they 
fully  reciprocated.  It  was  desired  that  the  preference  be 
determined  by  their  own  State.  Consequently  a  caucus  of 
the  Republican  members  of  the  Virginia  assembly  was  held 
in  June,  1808,  at  Richmond,  which  resulted  in  134  votes  for 
ISIadison  and  about  sixty  for  Monroe.  This  was  followed  by  two 
caucuses,  each  of  which  placed  an  electoral  ticket  in  the  field. 

Monroe's  attitude.  Monroe's  treatment  by  the  Admin- 
istration caused  some  bitterness.  He  felt  that  he  had  not 
been  supported  in  his  diplomatic  efforts  in  relation  to  Western 
Florida,  when  he  was  doing  his  best  to  pursue  the  instructions 
of  his  chief.  He  also  felt  that  the  President  was  attempting 
to  shelve  him  by  offering  him  the  governorship  of  Louisiana, 
a  position  that  was  arduous,  and  not  at  all  desirable.  He 
also  felt  that  Jefferson  had  purposely  kept  from  him  the  fact 
of  the  resignation  of  Nicholas  from  Congress,  a  vacancy  which 
could  have  been  filled  by  Monroe  with  honor  and  profit  both 
to  the  State  and  to  himself.  The  situation  would  have  induced 
a  less  honorable  man  to  have  entered  into  a  coalition  with  the 
Federalists.  There  was  fear  expressed  that  Monroe  might 
take  the  step.  Monroe  was  embarrassed  not  a  little  by  the 
active  support  of  Randolph  who  was  not  in  good  standing 
with  the  Administration.    His  reticence  toward  the  proposals 


I30 


POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 


of  that  eccentric  Virginian,  induced  Randolph  to  criticize 
Monroe,  and  later  to  charge  him  with  ingratitude.  Monroe 
remained  quiet  in  the  campaign,  and  aspired  to  conduct  him- 
self wholly  satisfactorily  to  the  unprejudiced  mind.  After 
the  election  he  was  offered  and  accepted  the  Secretaryship 
of  State. 

Protest  against  the  caucus.  The  "Congressional  Caucus" 
was  at  this  time  seriously  opposed  by  numerous  pubhc  men 

from  all   parts   of 
^7.>\^  the  country.   After 

the  nomination  of 
Madison  by  the 
last  caucus,  a  vig- 
orous protest  was 
signed  and  sent  by 
a  group  of  con- 
gressmen. The 
protest  did  not 
confine  itself  to  the 
attack  upon  the 
method  of  nomi- 
nation as  uncon- 
stitutional and 
u  n  r  e  presentative , 
but  it  openly  at- 
tacked the  nomi- 
nee, Madison,  as  having  made  a  "shameful  bargain  with  the 
unprincipled  speculators  of  the  Yazoo  companies,"  and  as 
having  shown  "want  of  energy,"  and  as  having  participated  in 
the  authorship  of  the  "FederaHst,"  with  Jay  and  Hamilton. 

Efifect  of  war  spirit.  By  1812  this  agitation  had  lost  some 
of  its  vigor.  The  threat  of  war  with  England  absorbed  the 
attention  of  the  nation.  Madison  was  a  man  of  peace.  His 
aversion  to  belligerent  pohcies  was  embarrassing  his  closest 
friends.    It  was  understood  then  as  it  is  to-day,  that  the  mar- 


James  Madison 


ORG.\XIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      131 

tial  spirit  of  a  people  is  the  most  active  of  all  and  no  party  or 
leader  is  able  to  overcome  it  when  once  the  people  are  con- 
vinced that  a  wrong  is  being  perpetrated  by  a  bully.  A  com- 
mittee waited  upon  ^Ir.  Madison,  and  frankly  informed  him 
of  their  conviction  that  "he  could  not  be  kicked  into  a  war," 
that  he  would  have  to  be  reheved,  and  unless  he  took  a  bel- 
ligerent attitude  they  would  be  compelled  to  accept  another 
candidate,  hence  the  confidential  message  to  Congress  and 
the  declaration  of  war,  June,  181 2.  The  caucus  was  held  in 
May.  The  attendance  was  hght.  JNIadison  was  unanimously 
nominated.  As  in  1808,  the  caucus  before  adjournment, 
resolved, 

That  in  making  the  foregoing  recommendation,  the  members  of  this 
meeting  have  acted  only  in  their  individual  characters  as  citizens;  and 
that  they  have  been  induced  to  adopt  the  measure  from  a  deep  convic- 
tion of  the  importance  of  union  to  the  Repubhcans  throughout  aU  parts 
of  the  United  States  of  our  pubUc  affairs. 

This  resolution  was  designed  to  lessen  the  influence  of  the 
refractory  members  who  refused  to  be  bound  by  the  doings  of 
the  hated  "King  Caucus."  This  caucus  took  an  important 
step  in  appointing  a  committee  of  correspondence,  which  was 
the  first  congressional  campaign  committee  of  our  history. 
It  was  made  up  of  one  member  from  each  State,  except  Con- 
necticut and  Delaware.  This  step  shows  the  beginnings  of 
the  party  machinery  which  was  soon  to  play  such  an  important 
part  in  elections. 

The  New  York  convention  of  1812.  The  procedure  of  the 
remnant  of  Federalists  in  the  campaign  of  181 2  is  of  interest. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  the  candidates  of  the  party  in  the 
last  quadrennial  election  were  chosen  by  correspondence, 
rather  than  by  caucus.  Leaders,  such  as  Gore,  Cabot,  King, 
Jay,  Otis,  Pinckney,  Griswold,  Sedgwick,  Stoddard,  Gouver- 
neur  Morris,  and  Judge  Washington,  decided  to  call  a  conven- 
tion at  New  York.  Eleven  States  were  represented  by  seventy 
delegates.     This  convention  has  been  regarded  as  the  first 


132  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

delegate  convention  held  by  any  party  in  the  country.  How- 
ever it  did  not  partake  of  the  features  of  a  delegate  convention. 
There  was  no  regular  call,  no  apportionment  of  members  from 
the  various  States,  no  credentials  required  to  sit  in  the  con- 
vention, and  nothing  done  except  the  ratification  of  a  nominee 
and  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  five  to  correspond  and 
secure  a  union  of  all  anti-Madison  people  to  support  the  can- 
didacy of  Clinton. 

Interesting  deductions.  At  least  two  points  of  interest 
were  involved  in  the  Federahst  nomination  of  1812,  they  were: 
adoption  of  a  method  of  nomination  approaching  the  delegate 
convention,  and  the  taking  up  by  the  party  of  a  minority  can- 
didate for  standard-bearer.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Clin- 
ton was  at  the  head  of  a  New  York  faction  which  was  not  in 
favor  of  the  caucus  nominee.  In  fact  he  was  a  receptive  can- 
didate himself.  His  opposition  appealed  to  the  Federahsts  who 
decided  to  attempt  to  unify  all  opposing  elements  by  indors- 
ing him  as  their  candidate.  However,  this  decision  was  not 
unanimous  among  the  Federahsts.  C.  C.  Pinckney  favored 
King  or  Jay.  Stoddard  recommended  John  Marshall.  King 
felt  it  to  be  a  mistake  to  go  outside  of  the  party's  ranks  to 
secure  a  candidate.  But  New  England  favored  CHnton,  who 
was  the  idol  of  New  York  RepubHcans.  He  was  nominated 
for  the  presidency  by  a  RepubHcan  caucus  in  his  own  State, 
having  received  ninety-one  of  the  ninety-three  votes  cast  in 
the  caucus.  It  was  his  popularity  in  his  own  State,  and  his 
well  known  dissatisfaction  with  the  candidate  of  his  party, 
that  led  the  Federahsts  in  their  convention  in  New  York,  the 
following  September,  to  nominate  Clinton  for  President,  and 
Jared  Ingersoll,  of  Pennsylvania,  for  Vice-President.  The 
Federahst  pohcy  was  not  one  of  principle,  but  of  expediency. 
They  succeeded  in  carrying  all  the  New  England  States 
except  Vermont,  also  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Delaware. 
Chnton  received  eighty-nine  electoral  votes  for  President. 
Madison  received   128,  while  Gerry  received   131   for  Vice- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      133 


President.  This  policy  of  flirting  with  the  opposing  party- 
leaders  was  fatal  to  both  the  party  engaged  in  it  and  to  the 
candidate  permitting  it. 

The  Republican  situation  in  1816.  Ever  since  Monroe  had 
allowed  himself  to  be  used  by  Randolph  in  opposition  to  the 
nomination  of  Madison,  the  Administration  influence  was  not 
in  his  favor.  CHnton  had  placed  himself  at  the  head  of  an 
opposing  faction  and  had  thus  reduced  his  influence  to  the 
minimum.  Calhoun  had 
not  yet  shown  himself 
the  leader  he  later 
proved  to  be.  Jackson 
was  still  the  warrior  of 
ungovernable  passions 
and  not  yet  thought  of 
in  connection  with  the 
presidency.  The  field 
was  in  the  possession  of 
Monroe,  and  it  was  gen- 
erally believed  that  he 
would  succeed  Madison. 
At  least  he  was  the  can- 
didate of  the  people. 
On  the  1 2th  of  March, 
1816,  fifty-eight  Repub- 
Hcan  members  of  Con- 
gress met  to  consider  the  propriety  of  nominating  candidates 
for  President  and  Vice-President.  They  resolved  to  call  a 
caucus  and  urged  a  large  attendance.  The  caucus  was 
held  on  the  i6th  of  the  month.  In  Congress  at  the  time 
there  were  one  hundred  and  forty-one  members  of  the  Repub- 
lican party.  All  but  twenty-two  were  in  attendance.  The 
large  attendance,  in  the  face  of  the  well  defined  opposition  to 
the  caucus  system,  was  due  to  a  rumor  that  the  popular 
choice  for  the  candidate  might  be  defeated  by  the  intrigues  of 


James  Monroe 


134  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

certain  leaders.  The  balloting  showed  some  ground  for  the 
suspicion.  Monroe  received  sixty-live  votes  and  William  H. 
Crawford  of  Georgia  received  fifty-four.  The  popular  candi- 
date was  nominated  by  the  narrow  margin  of  eleven  votes. 

Effect  of  the  attempt  to  nominate  Crawford.  It  was  at  once 
asserted  that  there  existed  a  sort  of  political  dynasty  at  the 
seat  of  government,  which  was  attempting  to  perpetuate 
itself.  The  pubHc  was  reminded  that  their  choice  was  threat- 
ened with  defeat  by  the  machinations  of  certain  leaders  else 
a  comparatively  unknown  man  could  not  come  so  near  to 
winning  the  greatest  office  in  the  nation,  over  the  most  avail- 
able man  in  it.  This  was  the  opportune  occasion  for  the 
opponent  of  "King  Caucus."  PubHc  meetings  were  held  in 
many  parts  of  the  country  to  protest  against  it.  Roger  B. 
Taney,  afterward  chief  justice,  took  strong  ground  against 
it,  claiming  it  was  designed  to  interfere  with  the  independence 
of  the  co-ordinate  departments.  The  President  by  such 
method  was  hkely  to  become  obligated  to  members  of  the 
legislature,  a  contingency  which  would  materially  interfere 
with  the  necessary  independence  of  an  effective  Executive. 
It  was  this  line  of  argument  that  later  compelled  the  discon- 
tinuance of  the  poHcy.  In  1820  there  was  no  caucus,  although 
a  call  was  issued.  Only  a  few  members  attended.  No 
candidate  was  named. 

Crawford,  the  caucus  candidate  in  1824.  In  1824  party 
Hues  had  disappeared.  Monroe  had  received  all  the  votes  save 
one  in  the  preceding  election.  There  were  plenty  of  candi- 
dates, however,  by  the  time  of  the  next  election.  Niles 
declares  there  were  nearly  a  score  of  them  soon  after  the  inau- 
guration of  Monroe  the  second  time.  How  to  determine  who 
should  be  the  candidate  was  a  problem.  The  caucus  was  in 
ill  repute,  yet  no  other  satisfactory  method  had  appeared  to 
take  its  place.  The  President  favored  Crawford,  but  not 
openly.  In  fact  he  was  the  choice  of  the  State  leaders.  For 
example,  he  was  favored  by  Jefferson  to  begin  with.    The 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      135 

Crawford  element,  which  was  dominant  in  Washington, 
decided  upon  the  caucus  plan.  It  was  called  accordingly. 
Out  of  two  hundred  and  sLxty-one  congressmen,  all  told, 
two  hundred  and  sixteen  were  Republicans.  Of  these  only 
SLxty-sLx  attended  the  caucus.  SLxty-two  of  these  voted  for 
Crawford,  who  thus  became  the  caucus  candidate  of  the 
people. 

Clay's  candidacy.  In  1822  followers  of  Clay  in  the  Ken- 
tucky legislature  after  its  adjournment  reassembled  and  nom- 
inated him  for  President.  This  action  was  confirmed  in  Ohio 
in  the  following  year  when  ninety  of  the  one  hundred  and  two 
members  of  the  legislature  met  in  caucus.  On  a  vote  to  decide 
whether  to  nominate  a  candidate  for  President,  it  stood  forty- 
seven  in  favor  and  forty-three  against.  Whereupon  thirty- 
three  members  withdrew,  and  the  remainder  cast  the  following 
vote:  Clay,  50;  Clinton,  5;  Adams,  i;  and  Calhoun,  i. 

Ohio's  endorsement  of  Clay  was  in  keeping  with  the  action 
of  the  legislatures  of  Missouri  and  Louisiana.  The  former 
State  was  given  to  Clay  through  his  friend,  Thomas  H.  Benton, 
who  was  soon  to  play  an  entirely  different  role,  when  he  assumed 
the  leadership  against  his  erstwhile  friend  from  Kentucky. 
Louisiana  gravitated  naturally  to  the  support  of  Clay,  because 
of  his  zealous  part  in  the  establishment  of  the  "American 
system"  of  protection  to  manufactures  which  was  being 
linked  to  his  name.  The  sugar  interests  of  the  State  were 
dictating  the  attitude  of  the  State  on  political  matters;  hence 
its  advocacy  of  the  election  of  Clay. 

Clay's  personality.  Aside  from  the  actions  of  the  several 
legislatures,  numerous  mass  meetings  were  held  in  various 
sections  of  many  States,  as  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  New 
York,  in  the  interest  of  "Harry  of  the  West."  This  brilKant 
political  figure  was  born  in  Virginia,  became  the  "  Mill  Boy 
of  the  Slashes,"  studied  law  while  acting  as  amanuensis  for 
the"  distinguished  George  Wythe,  under  whom  both  Jefferson 
and  Marshall  had  pursued  their  legal  studies.    Wythe  was  an 


136  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

alumnus  of  William  and  Mary  College.  He  became  professor 
of  jurisprudence  in  it,  then  chancellor  of  his  State.  He  was 
identified  with  most  of  the  momentous  measures  of  his  State, 
leading  to,  and  growing  out  of,  the  Revolutionary  War.  In 
the  office  of  this  great  man.  Clay  received  his  earhest  impulses 
for  a  public  career.  Late  in  Hfe  he  delighted  his  friends  by 
telling  them  of  his  early  impressions;  how  perfectly  satisfied 
he  would  be  if  he  ever  could  reach  the  position  of  a  county 
court  advocate.  His  ambitions  carried  him  into  the  West  in 
search  of  a  more  fertile  field  for  his  talent. 

Public  recognition.  He  was  soon  chosen  to  the  Kentucky 
legislature,  and  in  1806,  before  he  had  reached  the  legal  age, 
he  was  chosen  to  represent  his  State  in  the  national  Senate. 
The  fact  of  his  reaching  the  legal  age  required  by  the  Con- 
stitution for  a  member  of  the  Senate  before  he  was  to  take 
his  seat,  permitted  him  to  serve  the  unexpired  term  which 
he  was  selected  to  fill.  Later  he  was  selected  as  the  Speaker 
of  the  Kentucky  assembly,  and  again  served  his  State  in  the 
United  States  Senate  from  1809  to  181 1,  when  he  was  elected 
to  the  national  House  of  Representatives.  His  universally 
recognized  abilities  as  a  parliamentarian  won  for  him  at  once 
the  Speakership  of  the  House,  in  which  capacity  he  was  des- 
tined to  achieve  a  most  brilliant  career.  He  resigned  in  1814, 
but  returned  again  the  next  year,  was  elected  Speaker  and 
continued  to  preside  over  that  body  until  182 1.  He  was 
again  Speaker  in  1823- 1825. 

Political  affiliations.  During  this  period  of  preferment  he 
was  identified  with  the  followers  of  Jefferson,  and  was  known 
as  a  Jeffersonian  Repubfican.  However,  his  positive  views 
upon  many  of  the  vital  issues  of  the  day  were  at  variance  with 
the  Repubhcans.  He  was  an  ardent  supporter  of  the  pohcy 
of  internal  improvements  at  national  expense.  He  at  first 
opposed  the  rechartering  of  the  National  Bank,  but  soon 
changed  front  upon  that  question  and  became  a  stanch  sup- 
porter of  the  plan.    He  took  strong  ground  in  favor  of  a  pro- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     137 

tective  tariff  and  later  was  regarded  as  its  mightiest  advocate. 
His  character  led  him  to  espouse  the  cause  of  the  weak  and 
oppressed;  hence  his  almost  fanatic  enthusiasm,  which  has  been 
inelegantly  denominated  by  his  enemies  as  ravings  upon  the 
question  of  Greek  independence.  His  "  jingoism  "  on  the  South 
American  situation  was  aroused  by  the  conduct  of  the  Holy 
Alliance.  This  same  characteristic  led  him  to  attempt  to 
ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  American  slave.  Colonization 
was  his  favorite  scheme,  to  which  he  gave  his  most  ardent 
support.  It  was  conceded  that  this  new  star  was  to  glow  with 
especial  brilliancy  in  the  political  heavens. 

Early  glimpse  of  Jackson.     Another  figure  had  appeared  in " 
the  political  arena  where  it  remained  for  several  years  gaining 
influence  every  year.    This  new  factor  was  born  in  the  State 
just  south  of  that  which  gave  birth  to  Clay,  and  hke  him  he 
had  moved  westward  and  located  in  Tennessee.    How  unlike 
the  Kentuckian  was  this  Tennesseean!     The  former  was  a 
man  of  thought;  the  latter,  a  man  of  action.    The  former  was 
at  home  in  the  forum;  the  latter,  upon  the  field.  The  former 
persuaded;   the  latter  commanded.     Both  were  subject   to 
strong ,  impulses.     Opposition  to  the  Kentuckian  would  be 
the  signal  for  torrents  of  eloquence  and  shafts  of  sarcasm. 
Opposition  to  the  Tennesseean  was  the  occasion  for  fits  of 
towering  rage  and  summary  proceedings.     They  were  both 
men  of  the  people,  destined  to  become  popular  leaders.    The 
youth  of  Jackson  appeals  to  the  mass  of  Americans,  especially 
those  of  his  day.    His  youthful  heroism  which  resulted  in  his- 
becoming  a  prisoner  of  war  in  the  Revolution,  was  but  an 
illustration  of  his  nature,  duplicated  many  times   afterward 
in  his  wild  and  heroic  career.     The  victory  notable  at  New 
Orleans   made   him   a   national   figure.     The   enthusiasm   it 
aroused  in  his  behalf  was  occasion  of  concern  to  many  lead- 
ing men,  chief  of  whom  was  Jefferson,  who  said,  "I  feel  very 
much   alarmed   at   the  prospect  of   seeing   General  Jackson 
President.    He  is  one  of  the  most  unfit  men  I  know  of  for  the 


138 


POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 


place.  He  has  had  very  Httle  respect  for  laws  or  constitu- 
tions, but  is  in  fact  an  able  military  chief.  His  passions  are 
terrible."  When  Monroe  had  thought  of  nominating  him 
minister  to  Russia  in  1818,  he  consulted  Jefferson,  who  ex- 
claimed, "He  would  breed  you  a  quarrel  before  he  had  been 
there  a  month." 

Jackson  as  a  warrior.  His  campaign  against  the  Seminole 
Indians  in  Florida  and  his  summary  proceedings  in  the  execu- 
tion of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  had  a  double  effect.    It  was 

declared  by  his  enemies  as  a 
high-handed  proceeding,  and  was 
investigated  by  Congress  when 
Calhoun  was  Secretary  of  War. 
While  Calhoun  did  not  actually 
condemn  Jackson's  conduct, 
still,  the  fact  that  the  investiga- 
tion permitted  open  attacks  and 
strenuous  efforts  at  censure  to 
be  brought  upon  him,  induced 
Jackson,  when  he  learned  of  his 
position,  ever  afterward,  to  hold 
the  South  CaroHnian  at  arm's 
length.  Jackson's  desire  person- 
ally to  account  for  his  official 
conduct,  brought  him  to  the 
seat  of  government.  From  Washington  he  went  to  Philadel- 
phia and  then  proceeded  to  New  York.  Balls  and  banquets 
were  given  in  his  honor.  His  trip  was  hke  that  of  a 
monarch  returning  from  a  conquest.  While  upon  this  tour 
the  Senate  made  some  reflections  upon  his  conduct.  On 
account  of  the  numerous  attacks  public  gaze  was  fixed  upon 
him.  In  this  way  his  talents  and  services  became  known  and 
the  persecution  awakened  sympathy  for  him. 

As  a  political  figure.  On  the  fourth  of  July,  1822,  the  gover- 
nor of  Tennessee  presented  to  him  in  the  name  of  the  State 


Andrew  Jackson 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     139 

a  sword,  as  a  testimonial  for  services  rendered  the  State.  In 
the  following  month  the  State  legislature  presented  him  to 
the  Union  as  a  suitable  candidate  for  the  presidency. 

The  legislature  of  Alabama  did  Hkewise.  Numerous  assem- 
blages of  private  citizens  in  various  parts  of  the  country 
recommended  him.  On  the  anniversary  of  Washington's 
birth,  1824,  a  Federalist  convention  was  held  in  the  city  of 
Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania,  and  nominated  Jackson  for  Presi- 
dent. On  the  fourth  of  the  following  month  a  Democratic  con- 
vention was  held,  which  also  nominated  him  for  the  presidency. 
In  the  following  August  the  "  regular  "  Democratic  convention 
was  convened  at  Harrisburg  and  endorsed  Crawford.  It  will 
thus  appear  that  Jackson's  candidacy  was  launched  largely 
by  the  people  of  the  States. 

The  younger  Adams.  The  first  thirty-six  years  of  the 
nation's  hfe  saw  but  five  Presidents.  Four  of  them  came  from 
Virginia,  who,  in  the  aggregate,  administered  thirty-two  years. 
For  the  remaining  four  years  of  the  thirty-six  years,  the  elder 
Adams  was  at  the  head  of  the  government.  During  this  time 
a  high  rank  of  statesmanship  was  maintained  in  the  choice  of 
Executive.  The  traditions  of  the  office  in  1824  pointed  to  John 
Quincy  Adams  as  the  successor  to  Monroe.  The  custom  had 
prevailed  of  selecting  the  Secretary  of  State  to  succeed  his  chief 
in  office.  It  was  claimed  that  Monroe  had  chosen  Adams  for 
his  Secretary,  rather  than  either  Calhoun,  Crawford  or  Clay, 
on  the  ground  that  Adams  would  be  least  likely  to  be  a  can- 
didate for  the  presidency;  in  this  way  he  (Monroe)  would 
not  be  aiding  the  candidacy  of  any  of  the  aspirants.  Adams 
was  the  best  equipped  of  the  candidates  with  the  possible 
exception  of  Calhoun.  As  a  youth  he  was  precocious.  He 
studied  abroad  and  at  the  age  of  fourteen  became  private 
secretary  to  Francis  Dana,  our  minister  to  Russia.  He  was 
graduated  at  Harvard  and  admitted  to  the  Bar.  He  became 
minister  to  Holland,  Prussia,  Russia,  and  England,  also  a 
United  States  senator,  special  commissioner  to  negotiate  the 


I40 


POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 


Treaty  of  Ghent,  and  Secretary  of  State  under  Monroe  from 
1817  to  1825.  His  approval  of  Jefferson's  embargo  against 
the  sentiment  of  his  section  of  the  country,  identified  him  with 
the  Repubhcans  with  whom  he  had  fraternized  up  to  his 
election  in  1824. 

His  fitness  for  the  presidency.  His  political  standard  was 
high  and  his  sense  of  pubHc  duty  keen.  He  absolutely  refused 
to  do  the  necessary  thing  to  gain  popularity,  to  make  poKtical 
friends  when  it  meant  to  him  a  surrender  of  dignity.     He  was 

austere  in  the  extreme.  He 
was  an  able  candidate  but 
not  an  available  one.  He 
had  received  one  vote  for 
President  in  1820  the  pre- 
ceding election.  In  1823 
he  was  nominated  by  a 
joint  meeting  of  the  Re- 
pubHcan  members  of  the 
Massachusetts  legislature 
and  of  Repubhcan  delegates 
from  towns  in  the  State 
not  represented  in  the  legis- 
lature. In  1824  a  mass 
meeting  in  Virginia  noini- 
nated  him  for  President 
and  Jackson  for  Vice-President.  It  thus  appears  that  he  was 
presented  to  the  people  in  a  similar  manner  to  that  in  which 
Clay  was  brought  forward. 

Calhoun  in  South  Carolina.  Yet  another  important  figure 
loomed  up  in  the  distance  to  stimulate  speculation  over  the 
outcome  of  the  campaign.  In  South  Carolina  two  promising 
statesmen  were  attracting  attention.  One  was  John  C.  Cal- 
houn, who  had  entered  Congress  in  181 1,  and  at  once  became 
the  leader  of  the  younger  element  of  the  Republican  party. 
He  was  fortunate  in  finding  himself  on  the  right  side  of  the 


John  Quincy  Adams 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      141 

war  agitation  and  in  fact  of  most  questions  of  vital  importance. 
He  became  Monroe's  Secretary  of  War,  and  has  the  rank  even 
to-day  of  one  of  the  greatest  War  Secretaries  the  country  has 
known  in  time  of  peace. 

His  home  rival  was  WilHam  J.  Lowndes,  who  had  preceded 
him  in  the  House  one  year.  He  remained  in  active  service 
to  his  death  in  1822.  Clay  referred  to  him  as  ''the  wisest 
man  he  had  ever  known  in  the  House."  Governor  Hamilton 
beheved  that  three-fourths  of  the  State  was  for  Lowndes. 
In  182 1  the  legislature  endorsed  him  in  preference  to  Calhoun. 
Lowndes,  however,  believed  that  Calhoun  was  the  stronger 
outside  of  the  State,  and  refused  to  make  any  effort  to  secure 
the  office.  His  untimely  death  in  1822  cleared  the  field  for 
Calhoun. 

Outside  of  South  Carolina.  In  this  same  year  there  was  a 
movement  set  on  foot  by  several  Congressmen  in  behalf  of 
Calhoun's  candidacy.  In  the  following  year  the  legislature  of 
South  CaroKna  endorsed  him  as  their  candidate  for  President. 
Calhoun  wrote  that  the  caucus  of  the  members  of  the  legis- 
lature was  unanimous  except  four  or  five.  It  was  clear  that 
the  young  men  of  the  country  were  for  him.  King  beheved 
that  the  army  was  solid  for  Calhoun.  John  Q.  Adams  recog- 
nized his  popularity  in  New  England,  and  as  early  as  18 18, 
before  there  was  any  occasion  for  rivalry,  he  declared  that 
Calhoun  "was  above  all  sectional  and  factious  prejudices 
more  than  any  other  statesman  of  this  Union  with  whom  I 
have  ever  acted."  Webster  asserted  that  he  was  the  best 
candidate  among  those  mentioned  for  the  office.  Judge  Story 
wrote,  "I  have  great  admiration  for  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  think 
few  men  have  more  enlarged  and  liberal  views  of  the  true 
policy  of  the  national  government."  He  was  but  forty-two. 
Niles  wrote  in  the  Register,  "  He  is  the  only  candidate  in  whose 
favor  the  people  have  moved."  Calhoun's  hopes,  whatever 
they  may  have  been,  were  dissipated  by  the  action  of  the 
people    of    Pennsylvania.      Aside    from    South    Carolina   his 


142  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

strongest  State  was  the  Keystone  State.  That  State  was 
conceded  to  him,  until  it  was  stampeded  for  Jackson,  and  the 
erstwhile  favorite  was  made  the  choice  for  Vice-President. 
The  Adams  and  Jackson  elements  united  on  him  for  Vice- 
President,  and  he  received  all  the  electoral  votes  but  seventy- 
nine. 

The  vote  in  1824.  Of  the  two  hundred  and  sixty-one  elec- 
toral votes  cast,  Jackson  received  ninety-nine  votes,  a  plural- 
ity of  fifteen,  which  fell  short  of  a  majority  by  thirty-two. 
Adams  received  eighty-four;  Crawford,  forty-one;  and  Clay, 
thirty-seven.  This  failure  to  elect  a  President  threw  the 
election  into  the  House  of  Representatives.  In  the  House  the 
vote  stood:  Adams,  eight-seven;  Jackson,  seventy-one;  and 
Crawford,  fifty-four.  Clay,  having  fallen  lowest  in  the  electoral 
count,  by  force  of  the  Constitution,  was  shut  out  of  the  con- 
test in  the  House.  It  was  conceded  that  had  he  been  within 
the  constitutional  requirement  and  allowed  to  compete  in  the 
House,  he  would  have  been  elected.  In  the  House  contest  the 
Federahst  influence  as  well  as  the  Clay  influence  went  for 
Adams,  thus  electing  the  National  Republican  candidate. 

Political  effect  of  the  election  of  1824.  This  defeat  was  laid 
at  the  door  of  "King  Caucus."  It  was  argued  that  had  the 
caucus  element,  which  claimed  to  be  the  regular  Democratic 
party  of  the  country,  supported  the  Democratic  candidate, 
either  in  the  election  at  large,  or  in  the  election  in  the  House, 
the  people's  choice  would  not  have  been  defeated.  Many  had 
been  for  some  time  waging  an  uncompromising  fight  against 
the  caucus.  They  denounced  it  as  undemocratic,  a  usurpa- 
tion of  authority,  and  an  attempt  to  arrogate  to  a  few  self- 
appointed  leaders  power  that  belonged  to  the  people.  Several 
Southern  States  pronounced  against  the  system:  namely, 
Tennessee,  South  Carolina,  Alabama,  and  Maryland.  Penn- 
sylvania took  the  opposite  position.  It  was  no  longer  a  matter 
of  doubt  that  the  caucus  was  the  instrument  in  the  hands  of 
the  machine  pohtician,  and  being  thus  identified  it  soon  fell 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      143 

under  the  ban  of  public  opinion.  Crawford  was  the  last 
caucus  candidate,  and  the  "  Scrub  Race,"  so  called  because 
the  campaign  was  in  the  interest  of  candidates  rather  than 
parties,  was  the  last  campaign  in  which  the  method  was 
employed.  It  came  into  use  in  an  emergency  and  went  out 
by  the  decree  of  the  people. 

Second  method  —  legislative  resolution.  It  has  been 
observed  that  methods  other  than  the  congressional  caucus  has 
been  employed  to  name  presidential  candidates.  One  of  these 
was  the  legislative  resolution.  In  1807,  during  the  embargo 
agitation,  the  legislatures  of  several  States  endorsed  Jefferson, 
which  fact  was  regarded  as  an  attempt  to  present  him  as  a 
candidate  for  a  third  term.  In  the  same  year  the  legislature 
of  Kentucky  recommended  the  candidacy  of  James  Madison. 
In  1824  the  legislature  of  Alabama  recommended  Jackson  for 
President  and  attempted  to  unify  action  of  the  several  States 
by  ordering  the  resolution  sent  to  the  various  States  with  a 
request  to  join  in  the  support.  In  1835,  White  was  recom- 
mended by  the  legislature  of  the  same  State.  In  1842  Calhoun 
was  nominated  by  the  legislatures  of  South  Carohna  and 
Georgia. 

Third  method.  The  legislative  caucus  was  employed  fre- 
quently. The  first  case  on  record  was  that  of  the  nomination 
of  Chnton  in  New  York  in  181 2.  The  case  of  Kentucky  pre- 
senting Clay  in  1822  and  Ohio  endorsing  him  in  1823  are 
examples  of  this  method.  From  1824  to  1832  the  method  was 
quite  common. 

Fourth  method.  The  legislative  mixed  caucus  or  conven- 
tion was  employed  to  remedy  the  faults  of  the  legislative  cau- 
cus. This  method  was  open  to  the  same  objections  that  were 
urged  against  the  congressional  caucus;  namely,  that  it  was 
unrepresentative.  In  a  caucus  of  the  members  of  the  legislature 
of  any  one  political  party,  many  counties  of  the  State  would  be 
without  a  representative.  Every  county  represented  by  the 
opposite  party  would  be  without  a  voice  in  the  nomination  of 


144  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

the  caucus  candidate.  To  remedy  this  defect,  the  mixed  con- 
vention was  substituted  for  the  caucus.  Its  plan  was  to  hold 
a  meeting  or  convention  composed  of  the  members  of  the  leg- 
islature belonging  to  the  caucusing  party  and  delegates  from 
the  counties  represented  by  members  of  the  opposite  party. 
This  plan  was  employed  frequently  in  State  nominations.  It 
was  employed  in  1823  in  New  England  in  naming  John 
Quincy  Adams  for  President,  and  again  in  1843,  ^^  Richmond, 
in  nominating  Clay  for  the  same  office. 

Fifth  method.  The  State  convention  was  another  method 
employed  to  nominate  candidates  for  President.  The  Harris- 
burg  convention  that  presented  Jackson  in  1824  was  of  this 
type.  Mass  meetings  to  launch  the  candidacy  of  a  favorite 
son  came  into  use  about  1824.  Adams  was  presented  in  Vir- 
ginia by  such  a  gathering.  Clay  was  presented  in  Ohio  and 
other  States  in  this  manner.  Jackson  followers  employed 
this  method  in  many  States.  The  disfavor  into  which  the 
caucus  had  fallen,  and  the  want  of  unanimity  in  the  various 
other  methods  employed,  gave  rise  to  the  delegate  convention 
system,  which  has  continued  down  to  the  present  time.  The 
success  of  this  method  warrants  a  more  extensive  examination. 


ch:\pter  VIII 

THE  DELEGATE  CONVENTION  ESTABLISHED— 1832-1844 

Appearance  of  Anti-Masonry.  In  1826  one  William  Mor- 
gan, a  Freemason  in  western  New  York,  threatened  to  reveal 
the  secrets  of  the  Masonic  order.  He  was  arrested  on  a  charge 
of  debt,  taken  in  custody,  and  disappeared.  That  he  was 
murdered  was  charged  against  the  order.  The  first  indica- 
tion of  pubUc  disapproval  was  the  defeat  of  a  local  pohtician 
by  a  large  vote,  and  so  quietly  was  his  defeat  accomplished 
that  it  was  not  known  up  to  the  election  that  the  officer  in 
question  had  any  opposition.  The  disaffection  spread  hke  a 
forest  fire.  It  enhsted  the  efforts  of  young  voters  and  won 
support  from  many  churches,  as  well  as  from  the  citizens  of 
rural  districts,  until  the  cause  commanded  suflrcient  strength 
in  the  State  to  elect  several  members  to  the  legislature. 

The  spread  of  the  agitation.  From  New  York  the  agita- 
tion spread  through  Pennsylvania,  Ohio  and  New  England. 
It  received  the  support  of  the  famous  editor  Thurlow  Weed, 
and  such  statesmen  as  Seward,  J.  Q.  Adams,  Calhoun,  Everett, 
Rush,  Harrison,  Webster  and  Sumner;  such  jurists  as  Marshall 
and  Story,  and  such  divines  as  Lyman  Beecher,  who,  on  an 
occasion  in  Boston,  prayed  that  the  "great  and  good  cause  in 
which  we  are  engaged  may  find  acceptance  above."  This 
incident,  which  at  first  merely  concerned  a  rural  community, 
had  in  a  brief  time  disturbed  the  political  equilibrium  of  the 
Empire  State,  and  assumed  a  national  significance.  Numer- 
ous mass  meetings  were  held  to  arouse  sentiment.     At  a  meet- 

145 


146  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

ing  on  the  anniversary  of  Morgan's  abduction,  held  in  Boston, 
William  H.  Seward  was  the  speaker.  On  the  approach  of  the 
time  for  the  presidential  election  in  1832,  the  Anti-Masons 
were  first  in  the  field. 

First  delegate  convention.  The  adherents  of  the  new 
party  called  a  convention  to  be  held  at  Philadelphia  in  Sep- 
tember, 1830.  They  styled  the  gathering,  "The  United  States 
Anti-Masonic  Convention."  In  it  there  were  ninety-six  dele- 
gates, representing  the  States  of  Vermont,  Massachusetts, 
Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  New 
Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Ohio,  and  the  territory  of  Michi- 
gan. The  convention  elected  Francis  Granger,  of  New  York, 
as  chairman.  It  adopted  a  resolution  arranging  for  a  second 
convention  to  be  held  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  on  the  26th  of 
September,  1831.  It  recommended  that  each  State  be  allowed 
a  number  of  delegates  equal  to  the  number  of  electoral  votes 
to  which  it  is  entitled  in  the  electoral  college.  It  did  not 
specify  the  manner  of  choosing  these  delegates.  It  stated  the 
purpose  of  the  coming  convention  to  be  the  choice  "of  suit- 
able candidates  for  the  offices  of  President  and  Vice-President, 
to  be  voted  for  at  the  next  election,  and  for  the  transaction 
of  such  other  business  as  the  cause  of  Anti-Masonry  may 
require."  This  Philadelphia  convention  has  been  erroneously 
styled  the  first  national  delegate  convention,  called  to  nomi- 
nate a  candidate  for  President.  It  did  notliing  except  organize, 
by  selecting  a  chairman,  and  provide  for  the  assembling  of 
a  national  delegate  convention  to  select  a  candidate  for  Pres- 
ident.   It  then  adjourned. 

Convention  in  session.  Accordingly,  on  the  appointed  time, 
the  first  delegate  convention  met  in  session  at  Baltimore,  with 
one  hundred  and  twelve  delegates  present,  representing  thir- 
teen States,  including  all  of  the  New  England  States,  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana,  New  Jersey,  Delaware, 
and  Maryland.  This  representation  indicates  that  the  party's 
source  of  strength  was  opposition  to  Jackson,  rather  than 


ORG.\NIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES       147 

zealous  advocacy  of  any  distinct  principle.  The  union  of  all 
anti- Jackson  elements  was  the  dominating  idea  of  the  con- 
vention. The  policy  of  the  martial  President  tended  to  solid- 
ify the  opposition.  The  sweeping  defeat  of  Adams  and  the 
vicious  attacks  against  Clay  by  the  Administration  adherents, 
together  with  the  brillant  talents  of  leadership  displayed  by 
Clay,  caused  the  opposition  to  rally  around  the  Kentuckian  as 
the  standard-bearer  in  the  coming  struggle. 

Candidates  mentioned.  Wirt,  who  had  been  attorney-general 
for  the  past  twelve  years  and  who  had  become  exasperated 
over  the  baseless  charges  against  Adams  and  his  adminis- 
tration by  the  Jackson  followers,  favored  Clay  as  the  rival 
candidate  of  Jackson.  On  tliis  matter  he  was  in  correspond- 
ence with  Salmon  P.  Chase  of  Ohio  and  other  prominent  men. 
There  is  httle  doubt  that  had  Clay  renounced  the  Masonic 
order,  which  he  decUned  to  do,  he  would  have  been  nominated 
by  the  Anti-Masons.  His  defection  compelled  the  search  for 
another  leader.  John  McLean,  of  Ohio,  was  decided  upon  as 
the  available  candidate.  But  this  decision  had  to  be  modified 
on  account  of  the  declination  of  Judge  McLean  who  was  too 
broad-minded  not  to  see  that  a  party  built  upon  such  a  slender 
foundation  as  the  Morgan  incident  and  a  campaign  conducted 
upon  a  single  positive  idea  which  was  negative  in  effect,  and 
the  choice  of  a  candidate  on  the  ground  of  opposition  to  a 
present  regime,  rather  than  any  pecuHar  positive  qualities  he 
might  possess,  must  end  in  humiliating  defeat.  John  Quincy 
Adams  was  available  so  far  as  his  attitude  toward  the  anti- 
Masonic  agitation  was  concerned,  for  his  denunciation  of 
Freemasonry  had  reached  the  public  press.  But  his  com- 
plete rout  in  the  preceding  election  disqualified  him. 

Wirt  nominated.  During  the  session  of  the  convention 
Chief  Justice  Marshall  and  Ex-Attorney-general  William 
Wirt  were  invited  to  take  seats  upon  the  platform  as  a  mark 
of  courtesy  toward  distinguished  talent  and  public  service. 
Very  much  to  the  surprise  of  Wirt  he  found  that  the  thoughts 


148  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

of  the  delegates  were  directed  toward  him.  The  convention 
tendered  him  the  nomination  on  the  28th  of  September,  and 
in  the  evening  of  the  same  day  he  sent  a  communication 
accepting  the  nomination.  It  is  an  interesting  communica- 
tion. He  accounted  for  his  inactivity  in  poHtics  on  the  ground 
of  his  love  of  peace  and  expressed  his  surprise  that  he  should 
receive  any  recognition  from  the  Anti-Masons.  He  was 
amazed  that  a  party  could  be  built  upon  such  an  incident  as 
the  Morgan  episode.  His  acceptance  closed  with  the  follow- 
ing: "  If,  with  these  views  of  my  opinions,  it  is  the  pleasure  of 
your  convention  to  change  the  nomination,  I  can  assure  you 
very  sincerely  that  I  shall  retire  from  it  with  far  more  pleasure 
than  I  should  accept  it.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  be  their  choice 
to  abide  by  it,  I  have  only  to  add  that,  in  a  government  like 
ours,  I  consider  no  citizen  at  Hberty  to  reject  such  a  nomina- 
tion by  so  respectable  a  body,  upon  personal  considerations." 
His  position  was  satisfactory  to  the  delegates  and  he  entered  the 
campaign.  Amos  Ellmaker,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  nominated 
for  Vice-President.  The  practise  of  adopting  a  party  platform 
had  not  come  into  vogue  yet,  but  a  very  near  approach  to  it 
was  made  by  this  convention  when  it  appointed  a  committee 
to  issue  an  address  to  the  people.  It  dwelt  upon  the  condition 
of  the  times,  the  ill  effects  of  secret  societies,  pointed  out  the 
quahties  of  their  candidate,  Mr.  Wirt,  and  closed  by  calling 
upon  all  good  citizens  to  rally  to  the  support  of  the  cause. 

Wirt  as  a  presidential  candidate.  Wirt  was  satisfactory  to 
the  Anti-Masons  and  his  poHtical  career  had  been  consistent 
with  the  wishes  of  the  opposition  to  Jackson.  On  the  other 
hand  Wirt  was  convinced  that  without  the  Clay  endorsement, 
his  candidacy  would  be  a  farce.  On  the  5th  of  December,  just 
one  week  before  the  Clay  convention  met,  Wirt  wrote  Judge 
Carr,  "There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  of  Mr.  Clay's  nomination 
by  the  convention  here  next  Wednesday.  So  be  it.  In  a  per- 
sonal point  of  view  I  shall  feel  I  have  made  a  lucky  escape. 
I  told  the  Anti-Masons  that  they  had  rung  the  knell  of  my 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     149 

departed  peace."     In  another  letter  to  Judge   Carr  he  said: 
"A  clerg}'man  informs  me  that  the  Presbyterians  are  thinking 
of  coming  to  my  aid.     I  belong  to  their  church.     They  are 
said  to  number  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  votes.  My 
ad\'ice  to  them  is  to  stick  to  their  rehgion,  and  not  sully  it  by 
mixing  in  poHtical  strife.   They  will  make  more  h>pocrites  than 
Christians  by  such  a  course.    This  is  bad  advice  as  a  poUtician, 
but  sound  as  a  Christian."    No  surprise  should  be  awakened 
that  a  man  such  as  Wirt  would  exert  every  honorable  means 
to  withdraw  from  the  turmoil  of  a  campaign  fraught  with  so 
much  anxiety.    Only  his  keen  sense  of  duty  to  the  men  who 
placed  him  before  the  people,  kept  him  in  the  race  to  the  end. 
State  of  parties  in  1828-1832.     The  Jackson  enthusiasm  as- 
sumed various  forms.    In  city  and  State  his  followers  at  once 
groomed  him  for  the  track  in  the  coming  race.    Among  the 
various  nominations  he  received  was  one  in  Columbus,  Ohio. 
His  followers  in  Congress  made  it  a  point  to  embarrass  every 
measure  of  the  Adams  administration.    By  1828  the  country 
knew  the  campaign  would  be  made  for  only  two  candidates: 
Jackson  and  Adams.    The  defeat  of  Adams  in  this  election 
opened  the  way  for  Clay  in  the  election  of  1832.    This  was  not 
only  because  of  Clay's  qualifications,  but  especially  because  he 
had  been  the  target  for  bitter  attacks  from  Jackson  and  his 
friends.  He  was  charged  with  being  guilty  of  a  corrupt  bargain 
in  which  it  was  alleged  that  he  sold  his  influence  to  Adams  for 
the  position  in  the  Cabinet  so  that  he  might  be  in  the  line  for 
succession  to  the  presidency.     Notwithstanding  the   specific 
denial  of  the  charge  by  both  Clay  and  Adams,  and  the  public 
exculpation  from  no  less  an  opponent  than  Benton  of  Missouri, 
the  charge  was  reiterated  by  Jackson  and  his  friends.    Jack- 
son's attitude  toward  his  opponents,   his  dealing  with    the 
office-holders,  his  war  upon  the  Bank,  and  his  extension  of  the 
Executive  function  in  general,  created  an  opposition    which 
naturally  rallied  around  Clay  as  the  suitable  candidate  to  be 
pitted  against  him. 


I50  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

A  Clay  convention.  For  the  sake  of  union  of  sentiment,  a 
convention  of  those  in  opposition  to  Jackson  and  his  poKcy 
was  decided  upon.  It  was  arranged  to  have  the  convention 
meet  in  Baltimore  on  the  12th  of  December,  1831.  It  was 
this  convention  that  Wirt  had  agreed  to  attend  in  behalf  of 
Clay.  There  were  one  hundred  and  fifty-seven  delegates  in 
attendance,  representing  seventeen  States  and  the  District  of 
Columbia.  Clay  was  unanimously  nominated  for  President 
and  John  Sergeant,  of  Pennsylvania,  for  Vice-President.  The 
convention  adopted  no  platform  of  principles  but,  like  its  prede- 
cessor, the  Anti-Masonic  convention,  it  issued  an  address 
to  the  American  people  calhng  their  attention  to  the  tendencies 
of  the  Jackson  regime. 

An  address  to  the  people.  The  address  declared  that  for 
the  last  three  years  party  measures  were  dictated  by  blind 
cupidity  or  vindictive  party  spirit,  marked  throughout  by  a 
disregard  of  good  poHcy,  justice  and  generous  sentiment, 
terminating  in  the  dissolution  of  the  Cabinet  under  discredit- 
able circumstances.  It  criticized  Jackson  for  his  allusions  to 
the  corruption  and  incapacity  of  Adams.  It  denounced  the 
"spoils  system"  of  the  President,  and  declared  that  poHtical 
proscription  was  carried  so  far  that  within  one  month  he  had 
removed  more  public  officials  than  had  been  removed  during 
the  forty  years  of  the  existence  of  the  government.  He  was 
charged  with  inconsistency  and  unreliability  on  questions  of 
national  significance,  such  as  the  tariff  and  internal  improve- 
ments. He  was  denounced  for  his  war  on  the  United  States 
Bank.  In  fact  the  address  was  a  series  of  negatives,  an  example 
of  that  error  which  denounces  a  condition,  but  offers  no  measure 
of  relief.  A  negative  as  an  issue  of  itself  uniformly  fails  in  the 
end.  The  address  ended  by  recommending  to  the  young  men 
of  the  National  Republican  party  that  they  hold  a  convention 
in  the  capital  city  in  the  following  May. 

The  first  national  Whig  convention.     In  compliance  with 
the  recommendation  a  convention  of  young  men  met  in  Wash- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     151 

ington  on  the  nth  day  of  May,  1832.  It  elected  William  C. 
Johnson  chairman,  endorsed  the  candidates  of  the  previous 
convention,  adopted  a  platform  of  principles  and  adjourned. 
This  was  the  first  instance  in  our  history  that  a  political  plat- 
form was  formally  presented  and  adopted.  It  consisted  of  a 
series  of  ten  resolutions.  The  first  declared  that  only  the 
united  efforts  of  the  citizens  can  perpetuate  the  principles 
established  by  our  fathers.  The  second  pronounced  in  favor 
of  a  ''protective  tariff."  The  third  declared  in  favor  of  an 
internal  improvement  poHcy.  The  fourth  indirectly  criticized 
the  President  by  declaring  that  the  Supreme  Court  was  the 
final  arbiter  in  disputes  where  the  nation  was  involved.  The 
next  four  resolutions  were  counts  in  the  indictment  of  the 
President.  The  tenth  and  last  resolution  of  the  platform  was 
a  call  to  every  citizen,  "  who  regards  the  honor,  the  prosperity 
and  the  preservation  of  our  Union,  to  oppose  by  every  honor- 
able measure  the  re-election  of  Andrew  Jackson,  and  to  pro- 
mote the  election  of  Henry  Clay  of  Kentucky,  and  John 
Sergeant  of  Pennsylvania,  as  President  and  Vice-President  of  the 
United  States."  Thus  the  National  RepubHcan  candidate, 
who  henceforth  became  the  leader  of  the  Whig  party,  entered 
upon  his  campaign  after  a  double  nomination.  He  went  before 
the  people  to  contest  his  claims  with  one  of  the  most  consum- 
mate leaders  this  country  has  known. 

Dissension  among  the  Democrats.  The  militant  Jackson 
had  a  stormy  administration.  If  a  Cabinet  member  was  dere- 
lict in  his  fealty  to  him  he  was  asked  to  resign.  In  case  he 
dechned  to  withdraw,  Jackson  removed  him  and  appointed  a 
successor.  If  a  Cabinet  member's  wife  was  not  acceptable 
socially  to  the  other  members'  wives,  the  President  issued  his 
orders  against  discrimination.  If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
nation  gave  a  decision  adverse  to  the  opinion  of  the  Chief 
Executive,  he  felt  it  his  privilege  to  ignore  it.  He  both  gov- 
erned and  reigned.  He  was  the  Executive  in  the  largest  sense 
of  the  word.    In  public  life  he  was  scrupulously  honest.    No 


152  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

bribe  taker  or  giver  would  dare  approach  him.  His  qualities 
were  such  as  appealed  with  powerful  effect  to  the  average 
voter.  He  possessed  the  quaHties  of  a  popular  leader.  At  the 
close  of  his  first  term,  although  he  had  declared  himself  opposed 
to  a  second  term,  there  was  no  thought  of  any  other  candidate. 
Not  so  in  the  case  of  the  Vice-President.  Calhoun  was  serv- 
ing his  second  term,  and  it  was  against  the  traditions  of  the 
office  for  him  to  serve  longer. 

Jackson  and  Calhoun.  It  was  no  secret  that  Calhoun  was 
not  pleased  with  the  conduct  of  the  President.  Nor  was  the 
President  satisfied  with  the  attitude  of  the  Vice-President. 
He  was  convinced  that  the  latter  desired  him  out  of  the  way, 
that  preferment  might  come  to  him  which  was  most  surely 
not  to  come  with  Jackson  in  authority.  The  episode  at  the 
Jefferson  dinner  was  another  incident  illustrative  of  the  fac- 
tional feeling  growing  up  between  the  two  men.  The  threat- 
ening attitude  of  the  State  of  South  Carolina  was  laid  at 
the  feet  of  Calhoun.  The  conduct  of  the  Calhouns  toward 
Mrs.  Eaton  was  a  determining  factor.  Van  Buren  in  1824 
became  the  champion  of  ''Old  Hickory,"  and  in  turn  made 
himself  heir  to  the  political  inheritance  of  the  mihtary  chief- 
tain. Jackson  desired  Calhoun  displaced  and  his  New  York 
favorite  installed. 

First  Democratic  national  convention.  Owing  to  this  lack 
of  unanimity  of  the  Jackson  followers  to  agree  on  the  running 
mate,  they  decided  to  call  a  convention  to  determine  the 
questions.  The  convention  was  called  to  meet  in  May,  in  the 
city  of  Baltimore,  which  was  the  third  convention  held  in  that 
city  in  the  years,  1831-32.  Lewis,  Jackson's  manager,  said  the 
suggestion  for  this  convention  came  from  New  Hampshire 
Democrats  who  used  the  name  "Democrat"  for  the  first  time 
in  connection  with  the  Jackson  party.  The  convention  was  a 
representative  one,  having  a  representation  from  every  State 
in  the  Union  except  Missouri.  General  Robert  Lucas  of 
Ohio  was  chosen  as  presiding  officer.     The  convention  fixed 


ORGAXIZATION  IX  THE  UNITED   STATES     153 

the  representation  of  the  States  in  the  convention,  basing  it 
upon  the  electoral  vote  to  which  each  State  was  entitled.  It 
also  adopted  the  rule,  that  "two-thirds  of  the  whole  number 
of  votes  in  the  convention  shall  be  necessary  to  constitute  a 
choice."  This  rule,  which  has  created  considerable  discussion 
in  Democratic  councils,  was  adopted  in  the  very  first  national 
convention  held  by  that  party.  Van  Buren  received  two  hun- 
dred and  eight  votes;  R.  M.  Johnson,  twenty-six;  and  Philip  P. 
Barbour,  forty-nine. 

Nomination  and  election  of  the  Democratic  candidates. 
Thus  the  convention  ratilied  the  choice  of  the  President.  No 
platform  was  drafted,  but  Mr.  Archer  of  Virginia  was  author- 
ized to  prepare  an  address  to  the  people.  He  reported  the 
wishes  of  the  committee  not  to  prepare  a  general  address,  but 
that  explanations  be  made  to  their  various  constituencies 
throughout  the  land.  To  avoid  the  charge  of  dictation  hurled 
at  the  old-time  caucus,  it  has  no  binding  force. 

The  election  resulted  as  follows:  Jackson,  219  votes;  Clay, 
forty-nine;  Floyd,  eleven,  and  Wirt,  seven.  The  Anti-Masons 
succeeded  in  carrying  one  State,  Vermont.  After  this  election 
the  Anti-Masonic  party  ceased  to  exist.  It  gave  to  the  coun- 
try the  national  delegate  convention,  which  was  adopted  at 
once  by  both  the  Jackson  men,  who  henceforth  took  the  name 
Democrat,  and  the  National  Republicans,  who  henceforth 
were  known  as  Whigs.  This  system  of  nominations  has  been 
continued  with  little  variations  from  that  day. 

Opposition  to  the  Jackson  dynasty.  The  defeat  of  Clay  and 
the  re-election  of  Jackson  was  not  unexpected  by  the  leaders 
of  either  party.  No  political  leader  could  avail  against  the 
dynasty  which  Jackson  had  established  in  spite  of  the  numer- 
ous factions  developing  within  the  party.  The  most  serious 
difference  in  the  party  arose  from  the  efforts  of  the  President 
to  name  Vice-President  Van  Buren  as  his  successor  to  the 
chief  magistracy  of  the  nation.  It  was  asserted  by  the  bolder 
dissentients  in  the  party  that  they  had  reluctantly  assented  to 


154  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

the  President's  wishes  relative  to  his  running  mate  in  the  pre- 
vious election  because  the  attitude  of  his  former  running  mate 
had  embarrassed  him  in  the  performance  of  his  official  duties. 
Now  they  declared  that  no  such  emergency  existed  and  it  was 
undemocratic  to  permit  an  outgoing  Executive  to  say  who  his 
successor  should  be.  Jackson  was  a  man  of  strong  likes  and 
dislikes.  These  characteristics  were  ruHng  passions  in  him. 
His  intense  hatred  of  Calhoun  led  him  to  espouse  the  cause 
of  a  m.an  out  of  favor  with  the  South  Carohnian. 

Jackson  and  Van  Buren.     Van  Buren's  loyalty  to  his  chief 
while  Secretary  of  State,  during  which  time  he  stood  by  Jackson 
throughout  all  the  fierce  storm  of  abuse  and  vindicated  him  on 
all  occasions  — even  to  defending  his  attitude  in  the  Mrs.  Eaton 
episode  —  had  won  the  gratitude  of  the  great  chieftain.     The 
fact  that  Jackson  was  serving  his  last  term  emboldened  many 
to  oppose  Van  Buren's  nomination.     The  defection  of  the  Cal- 
houn wing  of  the  Democracy  was  not  the  only  break  in  the 
ranks,  but  a  widely  respectable  element  of  the  party  endeav- 
ored to  thwart  the  Van  Buren  movement  by  taking  up  Senator 
White,  of  the  President's  own  State,  formerly  a  warm  supporter 
of  Jackson.     The  grizzled  old  hero  attempted  to  defeat  the 
purpose  of  the  malcontents.    It  was  in  this  campaign  that  the 
picturesque  Davy  Crockett  figured.    Crockett  was  caustic  in 
his  references  to  his  old  rival's  making  friends  with  the  New 
Yorker,  as  against  his  dignified  fellow  citizen,  whose  vaHant 
support  in  former  days  had  been  so  freely  received.     The 
opposition  was  so  well  defined  that  it  threatened  defeat  for 
the  party.    It  became  so  wide-spread  that  unity  of  action  was 
impossible,  unless  sentiment  could  be  crystaUized  about  some 
one  leader.    A  consultation  of  the  Jackson  leaders  revealed  the 
fact  that  the  opposition  was  not  united  on  any  one  candidate, 
while  Van  Buren  was  the  unanimous  choice  of  the  friends  of 
the  President. 

Democratic  national  convention.     It  was  decided  to  call  a 
national  convention  of  the  Democratic  party  to  nominate  a  can- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      155 

didate  and  thwart  further  dissension.  Accordingly,  a  conven- 
tion was  called  to  meet  in  Baltimore  in  May,  1835,  the  second 
national  convention  of  the  Democratic  party.  There  were 
over  five  hundred  delegates  present.  Every  State,  except 
South  CaroHna,  Alabama,  and  Illinois,  was  represented.  The 
convention  in  its  composition  was  a  sort  of  mass  meeting. 
One  hundred  and  eighty-three  delegates  attended  from  Mary- 
land, and  one  hundred  and  two  from  Virginia.  Tennessee,  the 
home  of  Jackson,  had  but  one,  and  New  York,  the 
home  of  Van  Buren,  forty-two,  the  number  of  its  electoral 
votes  at  the  time.  The  machinery  of  the  convention  had  not 
yet  been  built,  but  a  very  important  step  was  taken  when  the 
convention  adopted  the  rule  of  apportionment.  This  rule 
gave  to  each  State  the  number  of  votes  to  which  it  was 
entitled  in  the  electoral  college.  In  other  words  the  one  hun- 
dred and  eighty-three  delegates  from  Maryland  cast  but  ten 
votes,  while  the  single  delegate  from  Tennessee  cast  fifteen. 
An  attempt  to  abolish  the  two-thirds  rule  of  the  preceding 
convention  failed.  Van  Buren  was  unanimously  nominated, 
thus  confirming  the  statement  that  the  convention  was  but  a 
meeting  to  ratify  the  will  of  the  out-going  President. 

Episode  in  the  convention.  The  will  of  the  President  hav- 
ing been  carried  out  in  the  matter  of  choosing  the  candidate 
for  President,  the  delegates  insisted  upon  their  discretion  in 
the  choice  of  Vice-President.  R.  M.  Johnson  of  Kentucky 
was  the  favorite.  But  bitter  opposition  to  him  developed  in 
the  Virginia  delegation.  W.  C.  Rives  of  Virginia  was  a  second 
candidate.  The  ballot  showed  that  Johnson  had  received  one 
hundred  and  seventy-eight  votes,  and  Rives  eighty-seven. 
The  Kentuckian  having  received  two-thirds  was  declared  the 
nominee.  Whereupon  the  delegates  of  Virginia  announced 
their  refusal  to  be  bound  by  the  result.  They  declared  their 
purpose  to  oppose  Johnson  on  the  ground  that  they  had  come 
to  the  convention  pledged  to  support  principles,  not  men. 
This  conduct  is  significant  in  revealing  the  lack  of  the  binding 


156 


POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 


force  of  the  convention  upon  the  people.  It  is  evident  that 
neither  the  people  nor  the  delegates  looked  upon  the  doings  of 
the  convention  as  binding,  but  rather  as  a  recommendation 
to  be  followed  or  not,  at  the  discretion  of  the  voter.  No 
platform  was  adopted,  but  an  address  to  the  people  was 
ordered. 

A  stormy  administration.  The  distracted  opposition  to  the 
Jackson  regime  lacked  the  element  of  unity.  The  only  thing 
upon  which  it  was  united  was  its  displeasure  with  the  Admin- 
istration.   The  faction  led  by  Calhoun  grew  out  of  personal 

disagreements.  That  led 
'-     ' "  '  -:;-.  by    Clay  was    also    in- 

vc^jf'  tensely  personal.     That 

.  '^  led   by  White  of  Ten- 

nessee was  more   of    a 


local  character.  The 
policy  of  the  spoils  sys- 
tem was  destined  to 
make  one  friend  and  two 
enemies,  consequently 
the  general  disaffection 
of  the  ofhce-holder  who 
had  been  displaced  was 
apparent.  The  war  on 
the  Bank  had  arrayed 
against  the  President  a 
very  influential  element. 

His  famous  message  on  nullification  produced  bitter  hatred  in 

certain  quarters.     His  foreign  policy  was  warmly  denounced. 

His  famous  specie  circular  came  in  for  its  share  of  abuse. 

But    the  climax  was    reached,  when  he   caused   the  public 

deposits  to  be  placed  in  the  State  banks. 

The  Triumvirate.     This    was  pronounced    a    high-handed 

scheme  for  over-riding  the  Constitution.    It  was  the  last  straw. 

Then   was    formed    the    triumvirate  —  Calhoun,    Clay   and 


Martin  Van  Buren 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      157 

Webster  —  who  sought  to  censure  the  Executive  for  the 
alleged  unconstitutional  act.  In  spite  of  the  most  strenuous 
efforts  of  the  President,  the  vote  of  censure  was  spread  upon 
the  minutes  of  the  Senate,  but  through  the  untiring  energy  of 
Benton  the  resolution  was  finally  expunged  a  year  after.  At 
this  time  the  slavery  question  was  creating  some  disturbance 
under  the  agitation  of  Garrison  and  others.  The  opposition 
was  so  distracted  that  a  leader  of  uncommon  quahfications 
to  unify  the  scattered  elements  was  demanded.  Adams  was 
no  longer  thought  of  in  this  connection.  Clay  was  the  most 
available  man,  barring  the  incident  of  his  disastrous  defeat  in 
1832.  Webster  was  the  choice  of  his  own  State,  but  his  many 
constitutional  disputes  with  the  South  Carolinian  contingent 
did  not  recommend  him  as  a  candidate  who  would  win  the 
Calhoun  defection.  There  were  some  who  favored  the  can- 
didacy of  White,  but  it  was  doubtful  whether  he  could  carry 
his  own  State  against  the  influence  of  the  President,  so  he 
also  was  dropped. 

State  of  Whig  party  in  1836.  The  martial  spirit  of  the 
average  American  is  very  strong.  The  case  of  "  Old  Hickory," 
as  the  friends  of  Jackson  were  delighted  to  call  him,  is  an  ex- 
ample. Jackson  was  thought  to  be  an  ignorant  man.  He  had 
arrayed  against  him  at  first  much  of  the  talent  and  respecta- 
bility of  the  country,  still  he  came  to  be  one  of  the  most  popular 
leaders  the  country  has  known.  The  Indian  War  in  181 1  and 
the  war  of  1812-15  with  England  brought  out  a  second  mil- 
itary hero,  William  Henry  Harrison  of  Ohio.  He  had  not  been 
identified  with  public  life,  and  consequently  was  not  concerned 
with  the  factional  quarrels  in  the  party.  In  1835,  at  Harris- 
burg,  Pennsylvania,  a  Whig  State  convention  nominated 
Harrison  for  President  and  Granger  for  Vice-President.  A 
Democratic  Anti-Masonic  convention  in  the  same  city  nom- 
inated the  same  ticket.  In  fact  the  Granger  candidacy  was 
designed  to  win  the  Anti-Masonic  vote.  Judge  McLean  of 
Ohio  was  proposed  by  the  Ohio  legislature  as  a  candidate, 


158  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Harrison  was  nominated  by  conventions  in  Ohio,  Maryland, 
New  York  and  other  States. 

Attempt  to  unify  Anti- Jackson  elements.  White  was  nom- 
inated by  the  legislatures  of  Tennessee  and  Alabama  as  the 
Anti- Jackson  candidate,  and  Webster  was  nominated  by  a 
caucus  of  the  Whig  members  of  the  Massachusetts  legislature 
and  recommended  by  New  England  leaders.  The  Nullifiers 
of  the  South  favored  Mangum  of  North  Carolina.  There  was 
no  national  convention  of  the  Administration  opposition  ele- 
ments. There  were,  however,  several  candidates  representing 
various  sections  of  the  country  and  various  Anti- Jackson  forces. 
The  only  hope  of  these  elements  was  the  possibihty  of  pre- 
venting an  election  and  throwing  the  contest  into  the  House 
of  Representatives.  This  hope  was  dissipated  when  the 
campaign  was  once  fairly  begun.  Of  the  two  distinct  parties 
contesting  for  supremacy,  one  was  without  unity,  either  in 
sentiment  or  in  organization.  The  Democratic  party  proper 
presented  quite  a  solid  column,  while  the  Whig  party,  the 
successor  of  the  National  Republicans,  had  not  combined  all 
the  opposition  composed  of  the  old  National  Republicans,  the 
Nullihers,  the  Constitutionahsts  (who  declared  the  President 
had  violated  the  Constitution),  the  Anti-Masons  and  all  those 
who  opposed  the  general  poHcy  of  the  militant  chieftain. 

Election  of  Van  Buren.  This  will  account  for  the  five  can- 
didates voted  for  in  the  campaign.  Van  Buren  received  the 
votes  of  the  following  States:  Maine,  10;  New  Hampshire,  7; 
Rhode  Island,  4;  Connecticut,  8;  New  York,  42;  Pennsylvania, 
30;  Virginia,  23;  North  Carolina,  15;  Louisiana,  5;  Mississippi, 
4;  Illinois,  5;  Alabama,  7;  Missouri,  4;  Arkansas,  3;  Michigan, 
3.     Total,  170. 

Harrison  received  the  votes  of  the  following  States:  Ver- 
mont, 7 ;  New  Jersey,  8 ;  Delaware,  3 ;  Maryland,  10;  Kentucky, 
15;  Ohio,  21;  Indiana,  9.    Total,  73. 

White  received  the  fifteen  votes  of  Tennessee  and  eleven  of 
Georgia  —  twenty-six  in  all.     Webster  received  the  fourteen 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      159 

votes   of   his   own   State,    and   Mangum   eleven   of    South 
Carolina. 

Failure  of  election  of  Vice-President.  For  Vice-President 
votes  were  cast  for  four  candidates:  namely,  Johnson,  the 
regular  Democratic  nominee,  who  received  the  Van  Buren 
vote,  except  that  of  Virginia,  thus  reducing  Johnson's  vote  to 
147,  which  was  below  the  necessary  majority;  Granger,  the 
Wliig  nominee,  with  Harrison;  Tyler,  who  was  the  running 
mate  with  White,  but  who  was  nominated  by  the  Maryland 
WTiig  convention  as  Harrison's  running  mate;  and  Smith  of 
Alabama,  to  w^hom  Virginia's  vote  went.  The  circumstance 
prevented  the  election  of  a  Vice-President,  and  threw  the  elec- 
tion into  the  Senate  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Federal  Constitution.  This  body  proceeded  to  elect  Johnson. 
This  is  the  only  instance  in  our  history  that  the  Senate  has 
been  called  upon  to  elect  a  Vice-President. 

Clay's  expectations  in  1840.  Long  before  the  end  of  Van 
Buren's  administration  there  appeared  symptoms  of  party 
disintegration.  It  was  readily  observed  that  while  the  politi- 
cal heir  of  the  Sage  of  the  Hermitage  could  inherit  the  office, 
he  could  not  inherit  the  quahties  of  leadership  of  his  ancestor. 
The  State  elections  were  adverse  to  his  party.  No  one  was 
more  alive  to  the  situation  than  Clay  who  expected  to  receive 
the  Whig  nomination  in  the  coming  campaign.  He  knew  that 
he  was  regarded  as  the  chief  of  the  party,  for  he  had  cham- 
pioned every  vital  issue  upon  which  the  party  was  built.  He 
had  never  shirked  a  duty  to  his  party  and  had  always  placed 
himself  in  the  thickest  of  the  fight.  His  public  career  for  thirty 
years  had  kept  him  before  the  eye  of  the  nation.  At  this  time 
Clay  was  universally  recognized  as  one  of  the  most  consum- 
mate leaders  in  the  annals  of  political  history.  He  had  volun- 
tarily given  way  in  the  last  campaign  and  now  felt  that  he  had 
a  free  field.  In  this  he  was  doomed  to  disappointment.  Clay's 
attitude  toward  the  anti-Masonry  movement  in  his  campaign 
of  1832    insured  the  opposition  of  that  faction  of  the  Whigs. 


i6o  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

His  name  so  closely  linked  to  the  American  system  rendered 
him  unacceptable  to  the  South  Carolina  wing  of  his  party. 
Being  himself  a  slave-holder  made  him  somewhat  odious  to 
the  rapidly  rising  Abolition  party.  His  apparent  indifference 
to  Webster's  campaign  in  1836  tended  to  anger  New  England, 
These  facts  widely  known  throughout  the  country  caused 
many  leaders  to  fear  his  chances  for  success  if  nominated. 
Early  in  1839  Clay  had  been  informed  that  New  York  would 
support  him.  He  had  reasons  to  believe  that  Pennsylvania 
would  also  stand  by  him.  He  was  disillusioned  in  regard  to 
the  first  State,  when,  on  a  tour  of  New  York,  he  was  frankly 
told  by  Thurlow  Weed  that  the  State  would  be  for  Harrison. 
His  hopes  in  regard  to  Pennsylvania  were  blasted  by  the  "  Union 
and  Harmony"  convention  of  that  State,  when  it  resolved 
that  only  Harrison  could  unite  the  factions  against  the 
Democratice  candidate. 

"Whig  convention  in  1840.  The  national  Whig  convention 
was  held  on  the  4th  of  December,  1839,  at  Harrisburg,  Penn- 
sylvania. Twenty-two  States  were  represented  by  at  least 
two  hundred  and  sixty  delegates,  a  majority  of  whom  were 
favorable  to  the  nomination  of  the  "Great  Pacificator," 
Shrewd  politics  was  the  order  of  the  day.  In  New  York,  prior, 
to  the  selection  of  the  delegates  for  the  national  convention, 
letters  were  addressed  to  pretended  Clay  supporters,  but  real 
opponents,  urging  strenuous  efforts  in  their  sections  to  secure 
a  Clay  delegation,  stating  that  such  efforts  were  imperative 
if  a  showing  was  to  be  made,  as  his  name  was  not  greeted  with 
enthusiasm.  These  letters  were  then  widely  reported  until  the 
Clay  campaign  was  quite  hfeless.  To  add  to  the  discomfiture  of 
the  friends  of  Clay,  the  convention  adopted  a  rule  of  procedure 
designed  to  encompass  his  defeat.  Each  delegation  was 
required  to  appoint  a  committee  of  three  to  receive  the  views  of 
the  delegation,  and  then  communicate  the  same  to  the  assem- 
bled committees  of  all  the  delegation,  whereupon  each  delega- 
tion should  ballot  for  a  candidate;  after  which  the  committees 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     i6i 

were  to  compare  notes.  If  no  majority  had  been  cast  for  any- 
one candidate  then  another  ballot  should  be  taken,  and  so  on 
until  such  a  majority  was  reached  when  it  was  to  be  reported 
to  the  convention.  By  means  of  these  sub  rosa  proceedings 
the  minority  party  or  candidate  could  direct  his  supporters 
to  the  best  advantage. 

Clay's  strength.  The  first  comparison  of  the  committees 
of  three  showed  Clay  had  received  102  votes,  Harrison  91,  and 
Scott  57.  Ballots  were  taken  in  the  committees  for  three  days, 
but  as  no  candidate  had  received  a  majority  it  was  only 
reported  to  the  convention  that  the  committee  had  not  been 
able  to  agree  upon  a  candidate.  Finally,  on  the  third  day,  the 
New  York  delegates  who  had  been  supporting  Scott  went  over 
to  Harrison.  They  were  followed  by  the  Scott  delegates  from 
other  States,  which  gave  Harrison  the  nomination  by  148 
votes  to  90  for  Clay.  The  disappointment  to  Clay  was  almost 
overw^helming.  He  exclaimed,  "I  am  the  most  unfortunate 
man  in  the  history  of  parties;  always  run  by  my  friends  when 
I  am  sure  to  be  defeated,  and  now  betrayed  for  a  nomination 
when  I,  or  any  one,  would  be  sure  of  an  election."  The  con- 
vention did  not  adopt  a  platform.  On  the  fourth  day  of  the 
convention  John  Tyler  of  Virginia  was  unanimously  chosen  Vice- 
President,  a  report  which  was  received  with  a  mighty  applause. 

Clay's  defeat  a  disappointment.  Greeley,  who  had  been  an 
interested  observer  of  the  proceedings  throughout  the  coaven- 
tion,  justified  the  result.  He  defended  Weed  and  Governor 
Seward  for  their  part  in  the  nomination  of  Harrison  on  the 
claims  of  the  delegates  of  Pennsylvania,  Ohio  and  Indiana, 
that  these  States  could  not  be  carried  for  Clay.  Greeley  further 
says  that  upon  the  defeat  of  Clay,  Tyler,  who  had  been  first 
and  last  a  Clay  man,  wept,  and  ascribes  his  unanimous  nom- 
ination for  the  vice-presidency  to  the  party's  desire  to  concil- 
iate the  friends  of  Clay.  It  is  important  in  the  study  of 
the  national  convention  system  to  note  in  this  National 
Whig  convention  the  attempt  of  the  delegates  to  represent 


1 62  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

the  wishes  of  their  respective  States.  Virginia's  delegates 
were  instructed  for  Clay  and  Tallmadge,  but  in  the  end 
were  to  go  with  the  majority.  New  Jersey  instructed  for 
Clay.  In  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Illinois  and  Missouri  the 
delegates  were  uninstructed.  Up  to  this  period  the  delegates 
represented  the  States  and  not  as  to-day  the  districts  of  the 
several  States.  In  this  convention  the  delegates  from  Arkansas 
represented  the  State  of  Louisiana,  as  well  as  their  own  State. 
Appearance  of  the  abolition  agitation.  In  this  same  year 
a  new  force  appeared  in  national  politics  which  was  destined 
in  a  short  time  to  become  of  most  serious  public  concern.  It 
was  the  movement  emanating  from  the  presence  of  slavery  in 
the  land.  It  is  not  the  purpose  to  examine  this  institution  as 
it  affected  the  current  of  history  except  to  indicate  its  effect 
upon  the  system  of  nominations.  The  agitation  started  as  a 
social  movement.  Strong  efforts  were  made  to  commit  the 
churches  against  it.  The  "Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation  " 
was  an  organ  started  in  the  interest  of  the  abolition  of  the 
traflfic  of  human  slavery.  Its  domicile  in  the  slave  city  of  Bal- 
timore proved  unsavory  to  the  inhabitants  and  it  was  decided 
to  move  it  to  the  capital  city  of  the  nation.  In  1831  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  the  foremost  anti-slavery  agitator,  issued  the 
first  number  of  a  new  publication  known  as  the  Liberator, 
printed  in  Boston.  His  announcement  to  the  pubhc  had  the 
ring  of  the  reformer.  He  exclaimed,  "I  will  be  as  harsh  as 
truth  and  as  uncompromising  as  justice;  I  will  not  equivocate;  I 
will  not  excuse;  I  will  not  retreat  a  single  inch;  I  will  be  heard." 
One  of  his  first  objects  was  to  petition  Congress  to  abolish 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  In  other  parts  of  the 
country  other  agitators  were  busy.  The  names  of  Lundy, 
Birney,  Lovejoy,  Lucretia  Mott,  Abby  Kelley,  and  the  Grimke 
sisters,  became  famous,  especially  the  last  three,'  due  to  the 
determination  to  exclude  women  from  participation  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  public  meetings  on  the  ground  of  a  "wise  custom 
ever  observed." 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     163 

American  Anti- Slavery  Society.  The  next  year  the  Ameri- 
can Anti-Slavery  Society  was  organized.  Great  mass  meetings 
were  held  in  Philadelphia  and  New  York.  Gerrit  Smith 
favored  a  Hne  of  activity  that  would  affect  poHtical  issues.  Gar- 
rison opposed  such  efforts.  He  declared  the  moral  and  reHg- 
ious  forces  would  be  disintegrated;  the  poHcy  would  arouse 
antagonism  with  no  compensating  advantage,  and  in  the  melee 
the  cause  would  suft'er.  The  reform  forces  were  already  divided 
over  the  woman  phase  of  their  operations.  In  1839  in  a  con- 
vention a  Hne  of  action  was  discussed  and  several  questions 
were  considered,  namely: 

(i )  Shall  the  reformers  take  an  active  part  in  the  campaign, 
or  shall  they  dechne  to  participate  in  the  elections  in  any 
way? 

(2)  Shall  the  reformers  go  before  the  people  as  a  new 
party? 

(3)  Shall  the  women  participate,  and  to  what  extent? 

(4)  How  shall  the  funds  be  raised  and  collected  and  apphed 
by  the  State  organizations  or  by  the  national  organization? 

Agitation  movement  split.  The  inabiUty  to  conciliate  the 
leaders  so  at  variance  split  the  forces,  and  thenceforward 
operations  were  carried  on  from  two  headquarters:  the  East 
and  the  West.  Garrison  led  the  East,  and  Birney  and  Smith 
the  West.  Garrison  sarcastically  commented  upon  the  division. 
In  the  meantime,  the  whole  West  was  veritable  camps  of  agi- 
tation. Giddings  and  Wade,  of  Ohio,  brought  the  matter  prom- 
inently before  the  country  by  their  radical  utterances.  The 
heroic  fight  of  John  Quincy  Adams  for  the  right  of  peti- 
tion in  Congress  met  with  approval  in  the  West,  a  most  fertile 
soil  for  the  growth  of  reforms.  In  this  section  the  agitation 
naturally  spread,  and  naturally  assumed  a  political  phase. 
This  people  beheved  in  voting  as  often  as  the  privilege  was 
extended.  In  1839  in  the  city  of  Cleveland  a  convention  was 
held  to  consider  the  feasibility  of  erecting  a  third  political 
party.    Garrison  questioned  the  motives  of  the  leaders. 


1 64  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

First  Abolition  convention.  On  the  13th  of  November,  1839, 
at  Warsaw,  New  York,  an  Abolition  convention  was  held.  It 
was  not  a  national  convention.    It  resolved, 

That,  in  our  judgment,  every  consideration  of  duty  and  expediency, 
which  ought  to  control  the  action  of  Christian  freemen,  requires  of  the 
Abolitionists  of  the  United  States  to  organize  a  distinct  and  independent 
political  party,  embracing  all  the  necessary  means  for  nominating  can- 
didates for  ofilce  and  sustaining  them  by  public  suffrage. 

The  convention  then  nominated  James  G.  Birney  of  Ken- 
tucky for  President  and  F.  J.  Lemoyne  of  Pennsylvania  for 
Vice-President.  Garrison  referred  to  the  work  of  the  conven- 
tion in  the  next  issue  of  the  Liberator  as  "folly,  presumption, 
and  unequaled  infatuation  of  a  handful  of  Abolitionists." 
Another  convention  was  held  at  Albany  in  April,  1840.  Of 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  delegates  present,  one  hun- 
dred and  four  were  from  the  State  of  New  York.  This 
convention  nominated  Birney  of  Kentucky  and  Earl  of  Penn- 
sylvania. In  the  following  May  the  great  meeting  of  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society  was  held  at  New  York.  Nearly 
a  thousand  members  were  present.  Garrison  came  loaded  for 
large  game.  He  brought  with  him  on  a  special  steamer  "  about 
four  hundred  and  fifty,"  which  he  styled  a  "heart-stirring 
spectacle."  He  was  in  full  control  of  the  meeting  and 
took  advantage  of  the  situation  by  passing  resolutions 
disapproving  the  policy  of  the  political  Abolitionists  as  inex- 
pedient and  hurtful  to  the  cause.  Later  the  candidates,  Birney 
and  Earl,  withdrew;  nevertheless  more  than  7,000  votes  were 
cast  for  them  in  the  election.  The  west  generally  went  to  Har- 
rison. 

The  third  Domocratic  national  convention.  On  the  5th  of 
May,  1840,  the  third  Democratic  national  convention  assembled 
in  Baltimore.  There  had  been  some  symptoms  of  opposition 
to  the  convention  plan  among  Democratic  leaders  since  the 
people  had  already  nominated  the  candidate  by  unani- 
mous  choice   of   Van   Buren.      However,  a  call  for  a   con- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      165 

vention  came  for  the  second  time  from  New  Hamp- 
shire. The  convention  was  represented  by  all  the  States 
except  Connecticut,  Delaware,  Virginia,  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia.  Governor  Carroll  of  Tennessee,  an  old  friend 
of  Jackson's,  was  elected  chairman.  Before  the  convention 
made  its  nominations  it  adopted  a  platform  of  principles, 
couched  in  nine  resolutions.  It  reiterated  the  Jeffersonian 
theory  that  the  Constitution  is  an  instrument  of  limited 
powers,  and  the  government  is  not  warranted  in  exercising 
doubtful  constitutional  powers.  It  declared  the  general  sys- 
tem of  internal  improvements  unconstitutional,  likewise  the 
attempt  to  charter  the  National  Bank  and  that  the  protective 
system  was  unjust  and  unsound  in  policy.  It  endorsed  the 
separation  of  the  pubhc  deposits  from  banking  institutions, 
pronounced  in  favor  of  rigid  economy  in  the  expenditure  of 
public  moneys,  for  the  first  time  declared  that  the  government 
had  no  power  to  interfere  with  the  domestic  institutions  of 
the  State,  and  denounced  the  agitation  of  the  Abolitionists  as 
dangerous  to  the  Union.  Here  is  the  beginning  of  that  embar- 
rassing question  of  slavery  as  a  political  issue. 

Democratic  nominees.  The  convention  then  unanimously 
agreed  upon  Van  Buren  as  the  candidate  of  the  party  for 
President.  Owing  to  the  lack  of  unanimity  on  the  choice  of 
candidate  for  Vice-President  the  following  resolution  was 
adopted: 

Whereas,  several  of  the  States  which  have  nominated  Martin  Van 
Buren  as  candidate  for  the  presidency,  have  put  in  nomination  different 
candidates  for  Vice-President,  thus  indicating  a  diversity  of  opinion  as  to 
the  person  best  entitled  to  the  nomination;  and  whereas  some  of  the  said 
States  arc  not  represented  in  this  convention,  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  convention  deem  it  expedient  at  the  present  time 
not  to  choose  between  the  individuals  in  nomination,  but  to  leave  the 
decision  to  their  RepubUcan  fellow  citizens  in  the  several  States,  trust- 
ing that  before  the  election  shall  take  place,  their  opinions  will  become 
so  concentrated  as  to  secure  the  choice  of  a  Vice-President  by  the  elec- 
toral college. 


1 66  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

The  campaign  of  1840.  The  campaign  of  1840  was  the 
most  picturesque  and  most  exciting  in  our  history.  It  marked 
the  introduction  of  the  famous  torch-light  processions  and 
mammoth  parades.  At  the  time  of  the  Baltimore  convention 
the  Whigs  held  one  of  its  many  jubilee  meetings  and  street 
parades,  which  a  speaker  in  the  convention  denominated  as 
the  Whig  animal  show.  The  Democrats  were  incUned  to  ridi- 
cule the  efforts  of  the  "Log  Cabin"  candidate's  friends,  in 
their  "  Hard  Cider  "  campaign.  The  entire  country  had  caught 
up  the  enthusiasm.  The  State  elections  of  Maine,  Ohio, 
Indiana  and  Georgia  proved  that  Clay  was  right  in  his  belief 
that  any  one  could  be  elected  on  the  Whig  ticket  in  1840. 
Van  Buren  received  the  electoral  votes  of  but  seven  States, 
sixty  in  all.  Harrison  received  the  votes  of  nineteen  States, 
two  hundred  and  thirty-four  in  all.  He  was  thus  elected  by 
a  larger  majority  of  the  electoral  vote  than  any  other  candi- 
date in  our  history  up  to  that  time.  Tyler  received  the 
same  vote  and  became  Vice-President. 

Activity  of  the  Liberty  party.  The  first  party  in  the  field, 
with  a  candidate  for  the  presidential  contest  of  1844,  was  the 
Liberty  party.  Their  first  general  convention  was  in  May, 
1841,  and  Birney  and  Morris  were  named  as  the  candidates 
of  the  party.  Another  convention  was  held  in  Buffalo  in 
September,  1843.  In  this  convention  there  were  present  one 
hundred  and  forty-eight  delegates,  representing  twelve  States. 
It  adopted  a  series  of  twenty-five  resolutions,  touching  the 
slave  question  in  all  its  phases  applicable  to  the  law-making 
power  of  the  government.  The  party  pohcy  indicated  that  it 
was  still  a  party  of  one  idea:  the  abolition  of  the  slave  system. 

First  accidental  President.  For  the  first  half  century  of  the 
nation's  hfe  there  had  been  no  occasion  to  apply  that  clause 
of  the  Constitution  which  provides  for  the  presidential  suc- 
cession in  case  of  the  removal  of  the  President  by  death  or 
other  disabiHty.  That  occasion  appeared  in  1841,  just  one 
month  after  the  inauguration  of  the  Whig  President.    On  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     167 


4th  of  April,  1 84 1,  the  nation  was  called  to  mourn  the  death  of 
President  Harrison.  Vice-President  Tyler  was  inaugurated 
President  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution.  There  was 
some  controversy  over  the  real  position  of  the  new  incumbent. 
It  was  vainly  urged  that  he  was  not  the  real  President,  but,  as 
in  the  case  when  the  President  pro  tem.  of  the  Sciiate  succeeds 
the  Vice-President,  he  was  but  the  acting  officer.  However, 
this  matter  gave  the  pubhc  small  concern.  Tyler  became  the 
first  ''accidental  President." 

Tyler's  policy.  At  once  much  speculation  was  indulged 
over  his  probable  policy. 
He  had  never  affiHated  with 
the  Whigs  on  principles,  but 
had  become  identified  with 
them  only  in  their  opposi- 
tion to  the  policy  of  the 
militant  Jackson.  He  was 
a  Strict  Constructionist,  and 
on  that  basis  had  opposed 
the  extension  of  the  execu- 
tive function  by  Jackson. 
He  had  been  opposed  to  the 
tariff  policy  and  the  internal 
improvement  policy,  as  well 
as  the  Bank  policy.  It  was 
now  a  question  whether,  having  accepted  an  election  upon 
the  advocacy  of  these  issues,  in  a  campaign  in  which 
they  were  widely  discussed,  he  would  prove  loyal  to  the 
party  in  their  efforts  to  carry  the  measures  into  effect  or 
relapse  into  support  of  his  former  principles.  Had  he 
never  reached  the  presidency  this  question  would  never 
have  been  raised,  but  under  the  circumstances  it  became 
of  supreme  significance  to  the  parties.  All  doubt  was 
soon  cleared  away.  The  tactless  conduct  of  Clay,  who 
at  once  outhned  a  policy  for  the  new  President,  hastened 


John  Tyler 


1 68  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

the  inevitable  breach  between  the  President  and  the  Whig 
leaders. 

Tyler  vs.  his  party.  Tyler  naturally  felt  the  authority  and 
power  of  his  position,  and  soon  intimated  to  Clay  that  he 
would  take  time  to  consider  the  policy  he  would  pursue.  The 
break  came  on  the  Bank  question.  For  twelve  years  a  relent- 
less war  had  been  waged  against  the  Bank  supporters.  Jack- 
son consummated  the  complete  overthrow  of  the  Bank.  Van 
Buren,  true  to  his  political  ancestor,  succeeded  in  properly 
interring  the  remnant  he  found  upon  his  accession.  Now  the 
party  of  Clay  and  Webster  was  in  power,  and  the  institution 
was  to  be  at  once  revived.  A  bill  for  that  purpose  was  passed 
by  both  Houses  of  Congress,  only  to  receive  the  President's 
veto.  A  second  bill  framed  to  meet  his  objections  met  a  hke 
fate.  The  breach  between  the  President  and  the  leaders  of 
the  party  which  had  elected  him  became  real.  His  Cabinet 
(the  Harrison  Cabinet,  which  Tyler  had  retained)  all  resigned 
except  Webster.  A  manifesto  was  published  by  the  Whig 
leaders  declaring  that  no  further  affihation  would  be  had  with 
the  President.  In  the  course  of  events  Tyler  became  a  most 
implacable  enemy  of  the  party  leaders  who  had  exalted  him. 
The  indignation  of  the  party  leaders  was  without  bounds. 
They  pointed  to  the  reversal  of  the  people's  will  expressed  by 
the  most  decisive  vote  ever  given  in  a  presidential  election, 
declaring  that  now  through  the  caprice  of  one  man  that  ver- 
dict was  reversed  in  the  most  shameless  manner.  The  Presi- 
dent naturally  sought  comfort  in  the  companionship  of  the 
enemies  of  his  detractors.  With  them  he  took  common 
ground  and  became  their  sponsor.  He  earnestly  sought  vin- 
dication for  his  position,  and  believed  he  would  receive  it 
at  their  hands.  The  Democratic  leaders  affected  to  support  him, 
but  had  no  thought  of  responding  to  his  desires  to  be  taken  up 
as  their  candidate  in  the  approaching  election.  Tyler  was  soon 
without  a  party,  hated  by  the  one,  and  suspected  by  the 
other. 


ORGANIZATION   IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     169 

Tyler,  Webster  and  Clay.  When  Tyler's  Cabinet  resigned, 
the  story  is  told  that  Webster  inquired  of  Tyler  where  he  was 
to  go,  and  was  answered  that  it  depended  upon  his  own  mind. 
Webster  is  said  to  have  replied,  "If  you  leave  it  to  me, 
Mr.  President,  I  will  stay  where  I  am;"  whereupon  the  Presi- 
dent arose  and  took  his  Secretary  by  the  hand  and  said,  "  Do 
that  and  Henry  Clay  is  a  doomed  man."  It  is  evident  that 
Tyler  beheved  that  with  the  powerful  aid  of  Webster  he  could 
draw  the  Whigs  away  from  the  leadership  of  Clay.  If  that 
was  the  thought  of  the  President,  he  was  underestimating 
the  qualities  of  his  antagonist.  Clay  outHned  the  policy  to  be 
pursued  by  his  party,  then  announced  his  intention  to  with- 
draw from  the  Senate  to  take  a  much  needed  rest.  His  fare- 
well to  the  Senate  in  March,  1842,  was  dramatic.  His  pathetic 
touches  drew  around  him  his  hosts  of  friends,  and  men  who 
had  not  been  his  friends.  Among  the  latter  was  Calhoun, 
who  had  been  for  years  estranged  from  him.  The  two  aged 
gladiators,  standing  with  clasped  hands,  was  a  sight  for  the 
gods.  Clay's  refuge  at  Ashland,  his  homestead,  was  the  center 
of  attraction  of  his  host  of  admirers.  To  his  home  many  of 
them  journeyed.  Others  wrote  missives.  All  sorts  of  occa- 
sions desired  his  eloquence.  He  visited  many  sections  of  the 
country,  and  wherever  he  went  he  was  hailed  as  a  chief.  He 
was  strangely  popular.  The  Whigs  seemed  anxious  for  the 
chance  to  vote  for  him  for  President.  As  early  as  the  spring 
of  1842  he  was  nominated  by  the  Whigs  of  North  Carolina. 
Soon  after,  similar  nominations  were  made  in  Georgia  and 
IMaine.  Even  New  York,  with  the  memory  of  her  former 
treatment  still  fresh,  as  if  to  make  amends,  gloriously  com- 
mended his  candidacy.  A  State  convention  of  Maryland 
joined  in  the  chorus  of  praise  and  named  him  as  the  standard- 
bearer.  He  attended  mass  meetings  held  in  his  honor.  It  was 
well  understood  that  he  would  be  the  party's  candidate  in  the 
coming  contest.  Webster,  who  might  have  been  a  competitor, 
surrendered  all  his  chances  for  recognition  by  remaining  in 


lyo  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

the  Tyler  Cabinet.  His  own  State  was  not  averse  to  the  Ken- 
tucky leader.  When  a  mutual  friend  desired  to  reconcile  the 
two  mighty  leaders  who  had  become  somewhat  estranged 
through  the  Tyler  episodes,  Clay  rephed  to  the  friend,  ''I 
have  done  Mr.  Webster  no  wrong,  and  have  therefore  no 
reconcihation  to  seek.  Should  I  be  a  candidate  for  the  presi- 
dency, I  shall  be  glad  to  receive  his  support,  or  that  of  any 
other  American  citizen;  but  I  can  enter  into  no  arrangements, 
make  no  promises,  offer  no  pledges  to  obtain  it." 

The  Whig  convention  of  1844.  The  national  Whig  conven- 
tion was  held  in  the  convention  city,  Baltimore,  on  the  ist  of 
May,  1844.  Every  State  in  the  Union  was  represented.  It 
was  but  a  ratification  meeting,  aflame  with  enthusiasm,  aroused 
by  the  magic  of  a  matchless  leader.  Clay  was  nominated  with- 
out opposition.  For  Vice-President,  Theodore  Frelinghuysen 
of  New  Jersey  was  nominated  on  the  third  ballot.  After  some 
speech-making,  Reverdy  Johnson  reported  a  platform  of  prin- 
ciples as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  these  principles  may  be  summed  up  as  comprising 
a  well  regulated  currency;  tariff  for  revenue  to  defray  the  necessary 
expenses  of  the  government  and  discriminating  with  special  reference 
to  the  protection  of  the  domestic  labor  of  the  country;  the  distribution 
of  the  proceeds  from  the  sales  of  the  public  lands;  a  single  term  for  the 
presidency;  a  reform  of  executive  usurpations;  and  generally  such  an 
administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  country  as  shall  impart  to  every 
branch  of  the  public  service  the  greatest  practical  efficiency,  controlled 
by  a  well-regulated  and  wise  economy. 

The  convention  then  adjourned  with  the  political  skies  full 
of  promise. 

State  of  the  Democratic  party  in  1844.  In  striking  con- 
trast with  the  unanimity  of  this  convention,  we  now  pass  to 
notice  the  strenuous  contest  in  the  national  Democratic  con- 
vention, held  in  the  same  city,  on  the  27th  day  of  the  same 
month.  The  success  of  the  Log  Cabin  candidate  in  1840  had 
been  looked  upon  by  many  influential  Democrats  as  a  triumph 


Henry  Clay 


171 


« 
172  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

of  buffoonery.  At  most  they  asserted  that  it  was  one  of  the 
occasions  when  the  rabble  for  the  time  had  control  and  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  could  not  long  be  continued.  Benton  was 
one  who  held  this  belief.  As  soon  as  the  result  of  the  election 
was  known,  he  exclaimed  that  the  Democrats  would  go  before 
the  people  with  Martin  Van  Buren  in  the  next  election  and 
triumphantly  elect  him.  The  unexpected  death  of  Harrison 
and  the  era  of  "Tylerism"  promised  to  alter  matters.  Tyler 
had  a  small  following  but  it  was  never  serious.  Calhoun  had 
some  claims  for  the  presidency  and  perhaps  no  man  was  better 
quahfied  for  the  high  oflfice  than  he.  He  had  always  been  a 
Jefferson  Democrat,  although  it  is  true  that  he  had  acted  with 
the  Whigs  in  his  opposition  to  Jackson.  Since  1842  he  had 
been  before  the  people  as  a  probable  candidate. 

Calhoun  again.  From  the  time  of  the  exit  from  the 
Capital  of  his  implacable  foe  (Jackson)  and  the  succession  of 
the  suave  Van  Buren,  the  South  Carohnian  had  conducted 
his  career  in  a  manner  to  meet  the  approval  of  sincere  Demo- 
crats. The  ready  recognition  of  his  superior  abilities  accorded 
him  on  all  sides  and  the  bitterness  of  the  nullification  era  hav- 
ing been  allayed,  persuaded  him  that  the  goal  of  his  early 
ambitions  might  be  looming  in  sight  again.  His  State,  always 
true  to  him,  yearned  to  do  him  honor.  He  had  been  its  pride 
and  in  him  was  the  acme  of  its  hope.  Now  the  time  seemed 
opportune  for  its  fondest  realization.  Van  Buren  was  humili- 
ated and  his  leadership  rejected.  Calhoun's  eagle  eye  caught 
the  situation.  He  followed  the  plan  of  Clay,  in  announcing 
his  intention  to  resign  his  seat  in  the  Senate  to  take  effect  at 
the  close  of  the  27th  Congress.  Immediately  upon  the  accept- 
ance of  his  resignation,  his  State,  through  its  legislature, 
unanimously  nominated  him  for  the  presidency. 

Able,  but  not  available.  The  Calhoun  flag  for  a  time  was 
carried  near  the  front  of  the  column.  But  it  was  not  long  to 
remain  there.  He  lacked  the  quahties  of  popular  leadership 
and  the  skill  of  the  manipulator.     No  well-informed  man 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     173 

would  deny  that  he  was  far  and  away  the  intellectual  superior 
of  any  man  in  his  party.  All  the  essentials  that  distinguish  the 
statesman  from  the  mere  politician,  this  singularly  brilliant  man 
possessed  in  a  marked  degree.  But  his  lot  Uke  that  of  Clay 
was  cast  in  hard  Knes.  Little  did  it  serve  him  to  be  recognized 
as  one  of  the  most  brilliant  deductive  debaters  that  had  ever 
addressed  the  stately  Senate  or  to  be  recognized  ds  one  who 
despised  cant  and  sham,  and  fought  with  an  eye  single  to  the 
best  interests  of  his  people  as  he  saw  them.  Such  rank  does 
not  always  commend  itself  to  the  small  politician,  since  to  him 
ability  is  not  so  important  as  availability. 

Out  of  the  race.  Calhoun's  first  test  of  strength  was  in 
his  causing  the  national  convention  to  be  deferred  to  the 
spring  of  1844,  against  the  wishes  of  the  opposition  to  hold  it 
in  the  autumn  of  1843.  This  victory  was  only  temporary, 
however,  as  it  served  to  awaken  the  opposition  and  call  into 
requisition  the  arts  of  the  manipulator,  the  prince  of  whom 
was  Van  Buren,  himself  the  leader  of  the  opposition.  The 
next  test,  and  the  one  of  importance,  was  in  the  manner  of 
selecting  delegates  to  the  national  convention.  The  Calhoun 
contingent  insisted  upon  the  district  plan  as  the  most  demo- 
cratic and  fairest  to  all  concerned.  This  was  the  opinion  of 
the  statesman  rather  than  of  the  politician.  To  this  plan  the 
Van  Buren  men  demurred  and  insisted  upon  the  State  plan. 
It  was  easier  to  manipulate  twenty-six  States  than  two 
hundred  and  forty-two  districts.  The  politician's  scheme  was 
adopted  and  Calhoun  withdrew  his  name  from  the  contest. 

Van  Buren,  Clay  and  the  Texas  question.  On  all  sides  it  was 
agreed  that  the  election  contest  would  be  between  Clay  and 
Van  Buren.  Singularly  enough  these  political  antagonists 
were  personally  quite  cordial,  one  with  the  other.  Van  Buren 
visited  Clay  and  enjoyed  the  hospitality  of  the  home  of  the 
Kentuckian.  Clay  reminded  the  public  that  not  much  politics 
was  discussed  during  the  visit.  This  incident  is  thought  to 
have  played  a  very  important  part  in  the  future  campaign. 


174  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

A  new  problem  had  arisen  in  the  Texas  matter.  The  annexa- 
tion of  that  repubhc  was  being  agitated  and  was  soon  to  assume 
definite  form.  The  Southern  States  generally  favored  the  pro- 
ject; some  of  them,  because  it  would  continue  the  equilibrium 
in  the  Senate  between  the  slave  and  the  free  States;  others, 
because  it  had  been  lost  in  earUer  negotiations  to  the  country, 
which  had  been  denounced  as  blind  imbeciHty;  and  others,  on 
commercial  grounds.  The  picturesque  Houston  had  gone  into 
the  Texas  country  and  was  followed  by  great  numbers  of 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  They  afterward  complained  to 
the  Washington  government  of  their  treatment  by  the  local 
authorities,  and  this  served  as  a  foundation  for  the  further 
agitation  of  the  various  promoters  of  annexation. 

Delicacy  of  the  situation.  The  sudden  appearance  of  this 
question  embarrassed  both  Clay  and  Van  Buren.  Clay  was  a 
Southern  slave-holder,  but  was  in  sympathy  with  the  idea  of 
gradual  emancipation.  He  had  also  been  the  very  head  of  the 
industrial  policies  upon  which  the  Northern  section  of  the 
country  stood.  Van  Buren,  on  the  other  hand,  had  no  special 
abhorrence  to  the  Southern  institution,  but  his  constituency 
in  the  North  might  have.  The  public  desired  to  know  the 
views  of  the  candidates  upon  the  "Re-annexation  question," 
as  the  Texas  matter  was  diplomatically  termed.  Letters  of  in- 
quiry came  to  Clay  and  Van  Buren.  Singularly,  their  answers 
quite  agreed.  Neither  could  see  how  the  country  could 
be  annexed  honorably  without  the  consent  of  Mexico.  Both 
saw  in  the  event  a  cause  of  war  between  the  two  countries. 
The  rephes  could  be  interpreted  in  no  other  way  than  adverse 
to  the  annexation  project.  Van  Buren's  letter  was  made 
pubhc  just  five  weeks  before  the  Democratic  convention.  It 
was  a  bomb  in  the  camp  of  his  friends  in  the  South.  Many 
of  the  States  had  already  instructed  their  delegates  to  support 
his  nomination.  The  Texas  letter  confounded  them.  Some 
of  the  Southern  leaders  at  once  denounced  the  writer,  others 
deplored  the  writing.    The  time  was  too  short  to  amend  mat- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     175 

ters.  Mass  meetings  were  held  in  various  States;  consultations 
were  held  in  others.  In  various  regions  throughout  the 
Southern  section  open  professions  to  ignore  instructions  were 
heard  on  all  sides,  while  here  and  there  a  delegate  resigned 
to  avoid  embarrassment. 

Democratic  convention  of  1844.  In  the  midst  of  the  excite- 
ment the  convention  met.  All  the  States  except  South  Caro- 
lina, which  felt  somewhat  humiliated  at  the  turn  of  affairs, 
were  represented  by  three  hundred  and  twenty-five  delegates. 
The  former  rule  of  apportionment,  giving  each  State  the  num- 
ber of  votes  equal  to  its  electoral  vote,  was  adopted.  The  con- 
vention thus  cast  but  two  hundred  and  sixty-six  votes.  Early 
in  the  convention  an  attempt  was  made  to  adopt  the  two-thirds 
rule.  A  vigorous  opposition  to  the  rule  at  once  developed, 
causing  it  to  be  tabled  for  the  time  being,  but  it  was  brought 
up  again  at  the  earhest  opportunity.  At  last  the  force  of  prece- 
dent prevailed  and  the  rule  became  again  the  order  of  the 
Democratic  party.  It  was  observed  that  the  Van  Buren  con- 
tingent opposed  the  rule.  Its  adoption  therefore  on  the  second 
day  was  a  distinct  warning  to  him.  An  analysis  of  the  vote 
indicated  a  sectional  division.  There  were  one  hundred  and 
sixty-one  votes  from  the  Northern  section,  and,  omitting  the 
State  of  South  CaroUna,  there  were  one  hundred  and  five  votes 
from  the  Southern  section  of  the  country.  The  first  ballot 
revealed  seven  candidates  voted  for,  namely:  Van  Buren, 
who  received  146  votes,  32  short  of  the  necessary  two-thirds; 
Cass  of  Michigan,  83;  Johnson  of  Kentucky,  24;  Calhoun,  6; 
Buchanan  of  Pennsylvania,  4;  Woodbury  of  New  Hampshire,  2 ; 
and  Stewart  of  Pennsylvania,  i.  For  seven  ballots  Van  Buren 
gradually  declined  from  146  to  99.  While  Cass  gradually 
increased  from  83  to  123,  his  highest.  On  the  eighth  ballot 
the  vote  stood:  Van  Buren,  104;  Cass,  114;  Buchanan,  2; 
Calhoun,  2;  and  Polk,  the  "Dark  Horse,"  44. 

Polk  nominated.     On  the  ninth  and  last  ballot  the  vote 
stood:  Van  Buren,  2;  Cass,  29;  and  Polk,  233.    Prior  to  this  drift 


176  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

toward  Polk,  an  effort  was  made  to  rescind  the  two-thirds 
rule  and  declare  Van  Buren  the  nominee  by  virtue  of  his  hav- 
ing received  a  majority  vote  of  the  delegates  on  the  first  ballot. 
This  effort  proved  fruitless,  making  it  evident  that  Van  Buren 
could  not  be  nominated.  After  another  ballot  his  name  was 
withdrawn.  Texas  agitation  was  responsible.  The  slavery 
question  was  at  the  bottom  of  the  Texas  agitation.  For  the 
first  time  the  minority,  representing  the  slavocracy,  dictated 
the  nomination  for  President.  A  further  analysis  of  the  vote 
shows  that  Van  Buren  had  received  134  of  the  161  votes  from 
the  Northern  section,  and  only  12  of  the  105  votes  from  the 
Southern  section.  This  was  the  beginning  of  that  fratricidal 
struggle  which  set  one  part  of  the  country  against  the  other, 
and  lit  the  fires  of  sectional  strife  which  blazed  with  increasing 
fury  until  they  enveloped  the  entire  nation  in  the  conflagration 
of  civil  war. 

Contest  over  Vice-President.  Silas  Wright  of  New  York 
was  nominated  for  Vice-President.  He  at  once  decHned  the 
honor,  perhaps  because  he  held  similar  views  with  Van  Buren 
upon  the  Texas  question.  After  an  attempt  to  induce  him  to 
reconsider  his  position  had  failed,  two  ballots  were  taken  to 
decide  the  contest  between  Fairfield  of  Maine,  Woodbury, 
Cass,  Johnson,  Marcy,  of  New  York,  Stewart  and  Dallas. 
The  contest  was  decided  in  favor  of  Dallas  who  received  220 
votes  of  the  256  cast  for  candidates  for  Vice-President. 

The  platform.  The  convention  adopted  the  platform  of 
the  party  in  1840,  and  added  a  resolution  concerning  the  appli- 
cation of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  pubHc  lands  to  national 
objects;  another  defending  the  use  of  the  veto  power  in  the 
President;  and  still  another  on  the  duty  of  the  government  to 
reoccupy  Oregon  and  reannex  Texas.  Before  adjourning, 
this  memorable  body  made  an  effort  to  appease  the  outraged 
feelings  of  the  Van  Buren  majority  by  adopting  a  resolution 
of  fulsome  praise  of  the  distinguished  Democrat.  The  resolu- 
tion ended  by  declaring,  "That  we  hereby  tender  to  him,  in 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      177 

honorable  retirement,  the  assurance  of  the  deeply  seated  con- 
fidence, affection  and  respect  of  the  American  Democracy." 

Tyler's  fate.  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  Tyler  was  ignored 
entirely,  both  in  the  resolutions  and  in  the  presentation  of 
candidates.  By  arrangement  another  convention  was  held 
in  Baltimore  at  the  same  time  as  the  Democratic  convention. 
This  was  in  the  interest  of  Tyler,  and  is  said  to  have  been  made 
up  of  both  Democrats  and  Whigs,  mostly  office-holders.  This 
convention  unanimously  nominated  Tyler,  who  accepted  the 
nomination.  The  complete  disintegration  of  his  support,  and 
the  ine\dtable  ridicule  accompanying  his  canvass,  induced 
him  to  withdraw  from  the  race  in  a  long  sarcastic  letter.  This 
ended  the  political  fortunes  of  the  first  "accidental  President." 

Result  of  the  campaign.  The  campaign  was  fought  by  the 
parties  upon  similar  lines  to  the  preceding  election.  The 
Tyler  disaffection  had  materially  disturbed  the  unity  of  the 
Whigs.  Their  platform  was  brief  and  somewhat  ambiguous. 
It  attempted  to  keep  before  the  pubUc  the  questions  which 
had  been  in  the  background  of  an  unsuccessful  party  for  years. 
The  success  of  the  Whigs  had  not  been  followed  by  the  prom- 
ised revival  of  industry.  The  new  agitation  of  the  Texas 
question  had  become  acute  in  the  nomination  of  Polk  upon  a 
reannexation  platform.  Besides,  the  Democrats  were  favored 
in  presenting  a  candidate  whose  shield  revealed  no  weak  places 
from  the  fact  that  he  had  no  political  career.  As  the  canvass 
proceeded  Clay's  anxiety  over  the  Texas  affair  became  great. 
He  recognized  it  as  the  pivotal  point.  His  anxiety  induced 
him  to  commit  the  blunder  of  writing  letters  upon  that  sensi- 
tive point.  He  wrote  to  his  friend,  S.  F.  Miller  of  Alabama, 
"  Personally,  I  could  have  no  objection  to  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  but  I  certainly  should  be  unwilling  to  see  the  existing 
Union  dissolved  or  seriously  jeoparded  for  the  sake  of  acquir- 
ing Texas."  He  further  asserted  that  the  leading  and  para- 
mount object  of  his  Hfe  was  the  preservation  of  the  Union. 
Surely  there  was  nothing  in  this  to  give  offense  to  any  Amer- 


178  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

ican  unless  it  was  the  uncompromising  Abolitionist,  who  saw 
notliing  in  Texas  but  slavery,  which  was  too  dear  at  any  price. 
A  second  letter  was  written  in  which  Mr.  Clay  freely  said: 
*'  Far  from  having  any  personal  objection  to  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  I  should  be  glad  to  see  it,  without  dishonor,  without 
war,  with  the  common  consent  of  the  Union,  and  upon  just 
and  fair  terms.  I  do  not  think  that  the  subject  of  slavery 
should  affect  it  one  way  or  the  other."  This  was  the  honest 
expression  of  a  public  man  upon  a  great  question.  But  its 
honesty  was  no  defense.  .  After  this  letter  was  made  pubhc, 
there  was  httle  hope  for  its  author.  Like  that  of  Van  Buren, 
it  could  not  be  explained.  It  added  nothing  to  his  candidacy 
in  the  South,  and  it  weakened  him  materially  in  the  North. 
New  York  would  decide  the  contest.  The  Democrats  wisely 
prevailed  upon  Silas  Wright  to  accept  the  candidacy  for  gov- 
ernor in  the  Empire  State.  On  this  battle-ground  the  issue 
was  decided.  Here,  where  the  Whigs  had  been  successful 
against  the  party  of  Van  Buren  in  the  State  contests,  Clay 
was  to  meet  his  Waterloo.  It  is  still  a  question  of  doubt  how 
much  his  defeat  was  due  to  the  Abolitionists,  how  much  to 
the  nativist  movement,  how  much  to  the  anti-rent  movement, 
and  how  much  to  fraud.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  any  one 
of  these  elements  was  strong  enough  to  defeat  him,  and  it  was 
strange  that  the  fates  decreed  that  all  of  them  should  be 
arrayed  against  him.  He  lost  the  State  by  five  thousand  and 
the  country  at  large  by  thirty-eight  thousand  popular  vote, 
which  gave  Polk  a  majority  of  sixty-five  in  the  electoral  college. 
This  election  was  the  first  in  which  the  "Dark  Horse"  candi- 
date (more  common  in  recent  years)  was  triumphant.  Polk 
had  defeated  the  shrewd  Van  Buren  in  the  Democratic  con- 
vention on  the  troublesome  Texas  question,  and  now  upon  the 
same  issue  he  accomplished  the  defeat  of  the  most  popular 
party  leader  since  the  days  of  Jefferson. 


CHAPTER     IX 

THE  DECADENCE  OF  POLITICAL  ORGANIZATION— 1844-1856 

The  nativist  movement.  The  national  delegate  convention 
for  the  nomination  of  candidates  for  President  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent was  ere  this  time  thoroughly  established.  No  further 
detailed  accounts  of  these  gatherings  are  necessary,  since  there 
is  much  uniformity  in  their  composition,  their  authority,  and 
their  proceedings.  For  the  contest  of  1848,  the  first  convention 
that  was  held  was  that  of  the  nativist  movement.  This  party 
was  a  new  factor  in  politics  and  had  its  rise  through  a  form  of 
antagonism  to  Catholics,  due  largely  to  the  active  participation 
in  politics  by  the  Irish  Catholics  in  the  cities,  and  especially 
in  New  York,  Boston,  and  Philadelphia.  This  confinement 
to  the  cities  was  due  to  the  presence  there  of  the  greater  num- 
ber of  immigrants  than  in  the  rural  regions,  notwithstanding 
many  Irish  immigrants  had  gone  into  rural  communities.  The 
hostility  largely  took  on  a  racial  color.  In  the  Southern  sec- 
tion the  activity  was  largely  confined  to  the  lower  strata  of 
society.  The  climax  in  New  York  was  a  riot  between  Catho- 
lics and  Protestants,  after  which  a  ticket  was  put  in  the  field. 
The  distinguished  inventor,  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse,  published 
letters  in  the  Observer  which  purported  to  discover  ulterior 
motives  of  the  Catholic  element.  These  letters  aroused  wide- 
spread distrust  which  was  followed  by  anti-popery  meetings. 
One  such  meeting  in  1835  was  broken  up  by  Catholics  and 
their  sympathizers  which  caused  an  anti-Catholic  ticket  to 
be  put  into  the  field  in  the  next  election.     This  movement 

179 


i8o  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

readily  affiliated  with  the  Whigs,  as  the  greater  number  of 
Cathohcs  were  Democrats. 

Takes  the  name  Democratic.  In  the  year  1835,  the  move- 
ment organized  as  a  National  Democratic  organization.  It 
was  founded  upon  at  least  three  cardinal  principles:  (i)  Amer- 
ica for  Americans;  (2)  anti-CathoKc  activity,  and  (3)  reg- 
ulation of  immigration.  In  1836  the  party  cast  a  large  vote, 
but  the  excitement  of  the  presidential  campaign  overwhelmed 
it  generally. 

American  Republican  party.  Governor  Seward's  position 
upon  the  school  funds  in  1840  emphasized  the  presence  of  the 
Catholic  element  in  politics.  This  incident,  in  connection  with 
the  appearance  of  Catholics  on  the  Democratic  ticket,  called 
into  being  the  American  Repubhcan  party.  This  latter  party 
declared  in  favor  of  naturalization  based  upon  twenty-one 
years  of  residence,  opposition  to  all  foreigners  in  office,  and 
the  acceptance  of  office  in  any  other  party  a  disqualification 
for  holding  office  in  this  party.  The  new  organization  elected 
four  members  of  the  national  House  of  Representatives,  and 
in  general  weakened  the  Clay  vote  in  New  York.  The  move- 
ment spread  rapidly  and  by  1844  had  become  a  poHtical  factor, 
known  as  the  Native  Republican  party.  In  1845,  in  Phila- 
delphia, its  first  national  convention  was  held.  Fourteen 
States  were  represented  by  one  hundred  and  forty-one  dele- 
gates. It  took  the  name  Native  American  party  but  made 
no  presidential  nomination.  Two  years  later,  in  May,  it  met 
in  another  convention  in  Pittsburg,  but  adjourned  to  meet  in 
Philadelphia  the  following  September,  when  it  recommended 
Zachary  Taylor  for  President  and  General  Dearborn  of  Mas- 
sachusetts for  Vice-President. 

State  of  the  Liberty  party.  In  November,  1847,  the  Liberty 
party  met  in  convention  at  New  York  to  nominate  candi- 
dates for  the  contest.  It  nominated  John  P.  Hale  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  King  of  Ohio.  The  inevitable  fact  in  the 
development  of  all  third  parties  was  at  once  experienced  by 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      i8i 

this  abolition  movement,  namely,  dissension  and  consequent 
disruption.  The  party  had  never  been  a  unit  on  political 
action.  Garrison  had  from  the  beginning  stood  out  against 
a  political  policy.  Now  the  pohtical  wing  split  into  factions 
until  there  were  no  less  than  five  divisions  representing  the 
anti-slavery  movement. 

Hunkers  and  Barnburners.  In  the  meantime  the  Demo- 
cratic convention  was  held  and  the  representation  of  New 
York  was  in  trouble  over  slavery.  The  division  was  between 
the  "Hunkers"  and  the  "Barnburners."  The  latter  repre- 
sented the  supporters  of  Van  Buren  and  opposed  the  Polk 
regime  on  Texas.  They  appeared  and  asked  representation 
in  the  Democratic  convention,  which  was  partially  granted 
by  seating  both  contesting  delegations  and  giving  to  each 
half  the  whole  vote.  To  this  the  "Barnburners"  demurred, 
which  called  attention  to  the  anti-slavery  element  of  the 
nation  by  recommending  Van  Buren  for  President.  This 
agitation  caused  the  pohtical  Abolitionists  to  look  toward 
Van  Buren.  The  Whig  party's  pohcy  of  neutrahty  at  this 
time  was  well  known.  Some  of  the  radical  element  of  the 
party  refused  to  endorse  a  slave-holder  as  their  candidate. 
Henry  Wilson  took  the  lead  in  forming  a  coalition  with  the 
dissatisfied  element  which  extended  into  several  States  and 
resulted  in  a  convention  at  Buffalo  in  August. 

Free  Democratic  movement.  Preliminary  to  this  conven- 
tion there  was  held  a  meeting  at  Utica,  New  York,  of  the  Free 
Democratic  convention,  at  which  appeared  delegates  from 
New  York,  Ohio,  Massachusetts  and  Wisconsin.  This  body 
put  the  name  of  Van  Buren  before  the  people  as  candidate  for 
President,  and  Dodge  of  Wisconsin,  for  Vice-President.  In 
Columbus,  Ohio,  a  convention  of  the  Liberty  party,  presided 
over  by  Salmon  P.  Chase,  seemed  to  favor  the  Van  Buren 
movement.  Another  convention  at  Worcester,  Massachusetts, 
stirred  by  the  eloquence  of  Sumner,  Giddings  and  Charles  F. 
Adams,  favored  the  movement,  and  selected  delegates  to  the 


1 82  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Buffalo  convention.  Its  purpose  was  to  select  from  the  three 
parties  delegates  known  to  have  aboHtion  sentiments.  On  the 
9th  of  August,  1848,  the  Buffalo  convention  met  with  dele- 
gates from  seventeen  States  and  the  District  of  Columbia. 
Three  slave  States,  Delaware,  Maryland  and  Virginia,  were 
represented.  Charles  F.  Adams  presided.  Two  candidates 
were  presented,  Van  Buren  and  Hale.  The  former  was  nomi- 
nated on  a  vote  of  159  to  129  for  Hale.  The  Liberty  League 
held  a  convention  in  June,  at  Rochester,  New  York,  and  nomi- 
nated Gerrit  Smith  for  President,  while  another  convention 
at  Philadelphia,  the  following  week,  endorsed  Smith. 

Democratic  convention  of  1848.  The  national  Democratic 
convention  met  in  June  in  Baltimore,  and  was  largely  attended. 
Every  State  was  represented.  Some  of  the  States  sent  large 
delegations  to  cast  their  allotted  votes.  The  first  contest  came 
in  the  appointment  of  the  credential  committee.  After  a  severe 
struggle,  the  two-thirds  rule  was  again  adopted.  Seven  can- 
didates were  balloted  for.  On  the  fourth  ballot  Lewis  Cass 
of  Michigan  received  the  necessary  two-thirds  vote  and  was 
declared  the  nominee.  W.  O.  Butler  led  for  Vice-President 
over  five  other  candidates,  and  on  the  third  ballot  was 
unanimously  nominated.  The  convention  substantially  re- 
affirmed the  platform  of  the  preceding  campaign.  It  also 
expressed  sympathy  with  the  Republican  struggle  of  France 
and  justified  the  Administration  in  the  Mexican  War,  on  the 
grounds  of  national  honor  and  defense. 

Attitude  on  the  slavery  question.  It  remained  quiet  upon 
the  slavery  issue,  by  rejecting,  by  the  vote  of  216  to  36,  the 
following  resolution:  "Resolved,  That  the  doctrine  of  non- 
interference with  the  rights  of  property  of  any  portion  of  the 
■  people  of  this  confederacy,  be  it  in  the  States  or  Territories 
thereof,  by  any  other  than  the  parties  interested  in  them,  is 
the  true  repubhcan  doctrine  recognized  by  this  body."  The 
convention  leaders  were  too  prudent  to  unfurl  this  challenge 
in  the  face  of  the  Northern  dissentients.     The  slavery  issue 


ORGANIZATION  IX  THE   UNITED   STATES      183 

made  Polk  President  in  1844  and  denied  him  the  renomination 
in  1848.  From  Jefferson  to  Polk  every  Democratic  or  Repub- 
lican President  was  honored  by  a  second  nomination  and  all 
but  Van  Buren  had  been  elected  and  served  a  second  term, 
barring  John  Quincy  Adams,  who  was  a  National  Repub- 
lican. The  platform  gave  fulsome  praise  to  the  outgoing 
President  and  referred  to  his  administration  as  patriotic  and 
brilliant. 

Clay  and  the  Whig  party  —  1848.  The  Whig  situation  was 
pecuhar.  The  abihty  of  Clay  as  the  party  leader  had  precluded 
the  appearance  of  the  brilliant  younger  element  of  the  party 
which  is  generally  present  in  all  political  organizations.  He 
had  been  defeated  three  different  times  for  the  presidency  and 
twice  for  the  nomination.  His  defeats  had  revealed  the  vul- 
nerable places  in  his  shield.  The  party  fretted  under  further 
embarrassment.  Webster,  who  had  committed  the  political 
sin  of  refusing  to  resign  from  the  Tyler  Cabinet  until  he  had 
perfected  the  treaty  with  England,  had  sufficiently  atoned 
for  the  error,  if  it  were  an  error,  and  his  marked  ability  with 
his  vahant  ser\'ice  commended  him  to  a  very  large  element  of 
the  party. 

The  Whig  convention.  Other  names,  such  as  McLean, 
Corwin,  Clayton  and  Scott,  were  frequently  mentioned  for 
the  ofhce.  But  poUtics  stands  for  inconsistency,  not  because 
it  is  always  wise,  but  because  it  frequently  ignores  principle 
for  the  sake  of  success  though  it  be  but  temporary.  Both 
Clay  and  Van  Buren  had  met  defeat  because  they  de- 
clared that  war  with  Mexico  was  inevitable  if  Texas  was 
annexed  without  the  consent  of  Mexico.  Annexation  was 
accomplished,  war  followed,  and  the  Whigs  fiercely  denounced 
the  President's  poHcy.  In  that  war  two  men,  Scott  and  Taylor, 
had  achieved  victories.  The  first  had  been  a  candidate  before 
the  Whig  convention  in  1844.  The  latter  had  been  before  no 
convention.  In  fact  Taylor  did  not  affiliate  with  any  party. 
It  is  alleged  that  he  had  not  cast  a  vote  for  forty  years.    He 


1 84 


POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 


was  a  slave  owner  in  Louisiana.  But,  as  the  hero  of  Monterey 
and  Buena  Vista,  what  matter  that  he  had  not  participated  in 
pubUc  affairs  to  the  extent  of  casting  a  vote?  What  matter 
whether  he  was  the  owner  of  slaves  or  that  he  had  led  a  vic- 
torious army  in  a  war  that  had  been  pronounced  unjust  by 
the  party?  The  national  convention  met  at  Philadelphia  in 
June,  1848,  Morehead  of  North  Carolina  presiding.  The  first 
ballot  showed  six  candidates:  Taylor,  in  votes;  Clay,  97; 
Scott,  43 ;  Webster,  2  2 ;  Clayton,  4 ;  and  McLean  2 .  On  the  fourth 

ballot  it  stood:  Taylor,  171 ; 
Clay,  3  2 ;  Scott,  63 ;  Webster, 
13.  It  will  be  noticed  that 
the  two  military  candidates 
increased,  while  the  civilian 
candidates  declined  gradu- 
ally down  to  the  last  ballot. 
The  convention  then  nomi- 
nated, on  the  second  ballot, 
Millard  Fillmore  of  New 
York  for  Vice-President. 

Taylor  as  a  candidate.  It 
was  said  the  Whigs  had 
gone  South  for  a  candidate 
and  found  one  whose  Whig 
allegiance  rested  upon  his  saying  that  he  was  not  in  the  habit  of 
voting,  but  that  had  he  been  a  voter  in  the  last  election  he 
would  have  voted  for  Clay.  To  forestall  a  repetition  of  the 
Tyler  experience  three  attempts  were  made  to  pass  the  following 
resolution:  "That  no  candidate  shall  be  entitled  to  receive  the 
nomination  of  this  convention,  unless  he  has  given  assurances 
that  he  will  abide  by  and  support  the  nomination;  that,  if 
nominated,  he  will  accept  the  nomination;  that  he  will  con- 
sider himself  the  candidate  of  the  Whigs,  and  use  all  proper 
influence  to  bring  into  practical  operation  the  principles  and 
measures  of  the  Whig  party." 


Millard  Fillmore 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      185 

Attitude  upon  the  slave  question.  Allen  of  Massachusetts 
introduced  a  resolution  seeking  to  bind  the  citizen  to  support 
the  nominee  on  condition  that  he  stand  upon  Whig  principles : 
"  no  extension  of  slave  territory,  no  acquisition  of  foreign  ter- 
ritory by  conquest,  protection  to  American  industry,  and 
opposition  to  executive  usurpation."  This  was  declared  out 
of  order.  A  motion  to  declare  Taylor  and  Fillmore  the  unani- 
mous choice  of  the  convention  also  fell  by  the  way.  It  was 
announced  by  a  delegate  from  Ohio,  that  in  order  to  carry 
that  State  it  would  be  necessary  to  declare  that  Congress  had 
the  power  to  interfere  with  the  introduction  of  slavery  into 
any  territory  now  possessed  or  which  might  be  acquired  by 
the  United  States.    This  was  also  ruled  out  of  order. 

Non-committal  policy.  It  was  apparent  that  the  conven- 
tion's work  was  far  from  satisfactory  to  the  party.  It  defeated 
every  attempt  to  commit  the  party  upon  the  slave  issue  or 
endorse  the  candidates.  It  adjourned  without  defining  the 
issue.  The  convention  was  at  least  consistent  in  having  named 
a  candidate  without  known  principles,  and  in  having  ad- 
journed without  embarrassing  him  with  a  platform.  After 
the  adjournment,  in  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  a  rati- 
fication meeting  was  held  in  the  form  of  a  mass  meeting  with 
Governor  Johnson  in  the  chair.  Speeches  were  made  by  the 
former  chairman  of  the  convention,  Coombs  of  Kentucky, 
and  others.  A  series  of  seven  resolutions,  in  the  form  of  a 
platform  of  principles,  were  adopted.  But  they  studiously 
avoided  committing  the  party  upon  the  sensitive  questions 
of  the  day. 

Result  of  election.  In  this  contest  Taylor  received  the 
votes  of  fifteen  states  —  163  in  all.  Eight  Southern  States 
gave  him  66  votes,  while  seven  Northern  States  gave  him  97. 
Cass  received  the  votes  of  fifteen  States  —  127  in  all.  Eight 
Northern  States  gave  him  72  votes,  while  seven  Southern 
States  gave  him  55  votes.  The  successful  result  of  the  election 
indicated  the  political  wisdom  of  the  Whigs  in  going  before 


1 86  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

the  country  non-committed.  But  their  success  was  only  tem- 
porary, for  in  less  than  two  years  the  slave  issue  became 
fatally  embarrassing  to  the  victorious  party.  In  less  than  a 
decade  the  Whig  party,  which  had  come  into  power  by  the 
errors  of  its  opponent,  became  entirely  disintegrated  and 
passed  into  oblivion  without  having  ever  honored  with  the 
presidency  one  single  great  name. 

Peculiar  situation  of  Taylor.  Taylor  fell  heir  to  a  serious 
political  situation  which  grew  out  of  the  Mexican  War  and  the 
troublesome  slave  question.  He  had  received  eleven  more 
votes  from  the  slave-holding  States  than  his  competitor,  and 
consequently  was  in  a  measure  committed  to  their  cause. 
The  one  supreme  purpose  of  the  Calhoun  pohcy  of  annexation, 
which  also  dominated  the  Polk  policy  of  the  Mexican  War, 
was  to  secure  necessary  territory  in  the  slave-holding  belt  to 
maintain  the  equihbrium  between  the  two  contending  sections 
in  the  national  Senate.  The  new  State  of  California  was  the 
first  to  seek  admission  after  the  Mexican  War.  As  in  the  case 
of  all  prior  admissions,  its  status  on  the  slave  issue  was  para- 
mount. When  it  was  known  that  the  people  of  the  proposed 
State  had  agreed  by  an  overwhelming  majority  to  exclude 
slavery  from  its  soil,  the  Southern  country  was  in  a  state  of 
fury.  The  greatest  interest  surrounded  the  Capitol.  What 
would  the  slave-holding  President  do? 

"Omnibus  bill."  The  threatening  struggle  finally  reached 
the  compromise  stage,  when,  in  the  early  part  of  1850,  Clay 
for  the  third  time  came  upon  the  scene  as  peacemaker  and 
proposed  the  famous  "  Omnibus  bill,"  the  Compromise  of  1850, 
in  which  he  endeavored  to  adjust  the  matter  to  the  greatest 
possible  satisfaction  of  all,  which  is  to  say,  to  the  satisfaction 
of  none.  He  proposed  a  plan  which  comprehended  six  points 
covering  the  disputed  grounds,  three  for  the  North  and  three 
for  the  South.  The  points  he  allowed  to  the  North  were: 
(i)  The  admission  of  California  as  a  free  State;  (2)  the 
slave-trade  was  to  be  aboHshed  in  the  District  of  Columbia; 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      187 


and  (3)  the  Territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  were  to  be 
organized  without  mention  of  slavery.  The  points  allowed  to 
the  South  were:  (i)  A  more  rigid  Fugitive  Slave  Law  to  be 
enacted  and  enforced;  (2)  Texas  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
national  treasury  $10,000,000  for  claims  upon  New  Mexico; 
and  (3)  Texas  should  not  be  divided  into  more  than  four 
States.  More  than  once  in  the  career  of  Clay  he  felt  that 
dissolution  of  the  Union  was  threatened.  The  serious  con- 
tention of  Calhoun  and  his  NuUifier  following,  together  with 
the  loud  demands  for  dis- 
uiiion  from  Wendell  Phillips 
and  his  AboHtion  following, 
alarmed  those  whose  greatest 
ambition  was  the  perpetua- 
tion of  the  Federal  Union. 

Clay's  fears.  Clay  had 
made  daily  observations 
upon  the  trend  of  Calhoun's 
mind,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
had  been  startled  by  the 
clamor  of  certain  reformers 
in  their  demand  for  imme- 
diate dissolution  of  the 
Union,  on  the  other.    He  had 

heard  the  ominous  cry  of  Phillips,  when  he  said,  "  My  curse 
be  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  He  was  no  less 
alarmed  when  he  remembered  that  the  great  Abolitionist  had 
said,  "As  to  disunion,  it  must  and  will  come.  Calhoun  wants 
it  at  one  end,  while  Garrison  wants  it  at  the  other.  It  is 
written  in  the  counsels  of  God."  He  had  heard  Webster  pro- 
nounce the  conduct  of  Phillips  and  others  as  revolutionary. 
Here  was  the  government,  racked  by  uncompromising  forces 
as  irreconcilable  as  the  forces  which  control  the  opposite  poles 
of  a  magnet.  The  Omnibus  bill  was  intended  to  accomplish 
the    impossible    task    of    uniting    the    irrcconcilables.      The 


Zachary  Taylor 


1 88  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

measure  was  presented  on  the  29th  of  January,  1850.  On  the 
6th  of  February,  Clay  began  his  two  days'  speech  in  favor  of 
its  adoption.  On  the  morning  of  that  day,  as  he  ascended  the 
steps  of  the  Capitol  upon  the  arm  of  a  friend,  he  showed  great 
physical  weakness,  and  in  reply  to  his  friend's  desire  that  he 
defer  his  effort  he  said:  "  I  consider  our  country  in  danger,  and 
if  I  can  be  the  means  in  any  measure  of  averting  that  danger, 
my  health  or  life  is  of  little  consequence."  His  effort  was  not 
equal  to  former  occasions.  He  spoke  as  one  delivering  a  last 
message  to  his  compeers  and  never  fully  recovered  from  the 
effects  of  the  exertions  made  in  the  two  days'  effort.  The 
measure  was  now  before  the  national  Congress. 

Calhoun  in  1850.  The  eyes  of  the  nation  had  fastened 
upon  the  two  great  constitutional  expounders,  Calhoun  and 
Webster.  On  the  fourth  of  March  the  South  Carolinian  entered 
the  Senate.  It  had  been  learned  that  he  would  speak  that 
day.  His  entrance  was  dramatic.  He  came  wrapped  in  flan- 
nels. Upon  his  face  were  the  marks  of  death.  His  coun- 
tenance revealed  a  heart  that  was  troubled.  His  wiry  frame 
was  bent  with  age  and  toil.  His  eye  shot  that  penetrating 
glance  which  had  so  often  commanded  immediate  attention. 
His  long  and  brilliant  service  in  the  counsels  of  the  nation, 
his  seriousness  of  purpose  which  had  precipitated  him  in  the 
unfortunate  contest  with  the  great  chief  of  his  party,  his  val- 
iant efforts  in  a  cause  that  had  received  the  death  sentence 
from  the  civilized  world,  his  brilliancy  in  debate  which  made 
him  most  at  home  in  the  arena,  and  his  voice  which  for  forty 
years  had  stirred  all  sorts  of  audiences,  —  made  his  entrance 
a  moment  of  exciting  interest.  No  wonder  that  the  tears 
blinded  many  present  when  it  was  made  known  that,  while 
his  mental  faculties  were  unimpaired,  his  physical  being  was 
unable  to  respond  to  the  utterance  of  speech  and  his  manu- 
script was  handed  to  his  friend,  Senator  Mason  of  Virginia, 
who  read  it.  What  a  scene !  The  dignified  Senate,  accustomed 
to  freely  respond  in  demonstration  of  approval  or  disapproval 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      189 

of  what  the  Nestor  of  the  South  had  to  say,  now  was  hushed 
into  silence  until  the  very  lisping  of  the  words  by  the  reader 
could  be  heard  by  every  auditor  in  the  galleries.  It  resembled 
the  ceremonies  of  a  funeral  occasion. 

His  last  speech.     His  opening  sentence  was  not  unlike  in 
pathos  to  that  of  Clay  in  February,  when  the  latter  said, 
"Never  on  any  former  occasion  have  I  risen  under  feeUngs  of 
such  painful  soUcitation.     I  have  seen  many  periods  of  great 
anxiety,  peril  and  danger  in  this  country,  but  I  have  never 
before   risen   to   address   any   assemblage,   so   oppressed,   so 
appalled  and  so  anxious."    So  spoke  Clay.    The  dying  message 
of  the  great  NulHfier  to  his  countrymen  opened  with  a  startling 
utterance:     "I  have.  Senators,  from  the  first,  beheved  that 
the  agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery  would,  if  not  prevented 
by  some  effective  and  timely  measure,  end  in  disunion."    Ke 
declared  that  a  widely  diffused  sentiment  pervaded  the  entire 
South,  that  the  States  could  not  longer  remain  with  the  drift 
as  it  was  in  favor  of  all  power  of  the  government  exerted  by 
and  for  the  North,  which  showed  that  the  South  was  con- 
stantly falling  in  the  rear  of  the  North.    He  seemed  to  breathe  a 
spirit  of  Union  in  marked  contrast  with  the  former  nullification 
sentiment.    In  the  very  beginning  he  asserted  that  the  "agi- 
tation has  been  permitted  to  proceed  with  almost  no  attempt 
to  resist  it,  until  it  has  reached  a  point  when  it  can  no  longer 
be  disguised  or  denied  that  the  Union  is  in  danger.    You  have 
thus  had  forced  upon  you  the  greatest  and  the  gravest  ques- 
tion that  can  ever  come  under  your  consideration:    How  can 
the  Union  be  preserved?  "    He  declared  that  the  compromise 
pohcy  of  Clay  would  not  do  it.    His  warning  was  against  the 
continuance  of  the  agitation.    Herein  he  revealed  his  limita- 
tions.   He  did  not  properly  estimate  the  force  of  the  collective 
conscience,   when   aroused   upon   a   pubUc    evil.     While   he 
seemed  fully  alive  to  the  trend  of  public  affairs,  he  failed  fully 
to  reckon  with  the  moral  elements  involved.     However,  the 
speech  produced  a  profound  impression  throughout  the  country. 


I90  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Webster  in  1850.  The  South  had  now  been  heard.  The 
North  awaited  her  time.  Webster  was  soon  to  speak.  His 
utterance  was  expected  to  recall  the  days  of  his  former  duels 
with  the  two  South  Carohnians,  Calhoun  and  Hayne.  Three 
days  after  the  Senate  had  been  hushed  into  silence  by  the 
prophetic  utterances  from  the  pen  of  Calhoun,  Webster  arose  to 
speak.  His  speech  has  ever  been  referred  to  as  the  "  Seventh  of 
March  speech,"  and  by  his  biographer  as  the  "  fatal  Seventh  of 
March  speech,"  so  disappointing  was  it  to  the  radical  element 
of  the  North.  This  element  had  insisted  that  the  compro- 
mise was  one-sided;  that  it  gave  the  North  only  the  freedom  of 
California,  which  was  already  assured  without  action  of  Con- 
gress. They  held  that  all  the  balance  of  the  territory  was 
secured  to  the  slave-holder.  It  was  on  this  matter  that  Web- 
ster took  issue  with  his  friends.  He  urged  that  the  character  of 
the  soil  of  these  regions  precluded  the  introduction  of  slavery 
there  with  greater  certainty  than  any  statute  could  do.  He 
saw  no  reason  for  the  re-enactment  of  the  laws  of  the  Almighty. 

Effect  of  the  Seventh  of  March  speech.  Perhaps  no  single 
speech  dehvered  in  the  country  created  such  wide-spread  disap- 
pointment. The  city  of  Boston  had  been  for  some  years  under 
the  domination  of  the  anti-slavery  element  of  the  city.  Webster 
was  threatened  bodily  injury.  He  was  charged  with  surren- 
dering not  only  his  own  principles  but  with  prostituting  those 
of  his  constituency  upon  the  altar  of  ambition.  Webster's 
conduct  in  ordering  the  speech  printed  and  sent  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  legislatures  of  the  States,  and  to  the  clergymen  of 
the  country,  served  as  evidence  that  he  was  bidding  for  the 
presidency.  Whatever  might  have  been  his  purpose  in  the 
speech  or  in  his  professions  to  the  public  relative  to  his  satis- 
faction with  the  reception  it  had  received,  he  allowed  it  to 
worry  him  not  a  Uttle  as  is  revealed  by  a  confidential  letter  to 
his  friend.  Haven,  in  the  following  September,  in  which  he 
said:  "I  am  like  one  who  has  been  seasick  and  has  gone  to 
bed.    My  bed  rolls  and  tosses  by  the  billows  of  the  sea  over 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      191 

which  I  have  passed."  Among  the  men  of  his  own  support 
who  abandoned  him  was  the  renowned  educator,  Horace  Mann, 
who  was  a  congressman  from  the  West  Newton  (Massachu- 
setts) district.  Mann  referred  to  the  conduct  of  Webster, 
who  up  to  this  time  had  been  an  object  of  great  admiration 
to  the  educator,  as  "  Lucifer  descending  from  Heaven."  Web- 
ster and  his  friends  committed  the  blunder  of  attempting  the 
defeat  of  Mann  for  re-election  to  Congress.  Mann  was  accord- 
ingly defeated  for  the  nomination,  but  was  elected  on  an 
independent  ticket. 

Seward  in  1850.  That  month  of  March,  1850,  was  yet  to 
offer  another  remarkable  speech  in  the  Senate.  Clay,  Cal- 
houn and  Webster  had  spoken.  After  the  "Trio"  had  been 
heard  little  interest  was  shown  in  the  further  speaking.  But 
another  voice  was  yet  to  be  heard,  not  by  a  crowded  Senate 
as  in  the  three  preceding  cases,  but  by  only  a  knot  of  senators 
in  an  empty  Senate  chamber.  The  speaker  was  without  pres- 
tige, without  great  reputation,  without  splendid  presence.  He 
hailed  from  New  York.  He  had  been  tinctured  by  anti- 
Masonry  and  as  a  Whig  had  not  favored  Clay  in  1840.  He 
took  his  place  in  the  Senate  as  one  with  distinct  ideas  upon  the 
slavery  question,  strongly  colored  in  favor  of  aboHtion.  He 
heard  the  speeches  of  his  great  compeers  and  was  displeased 
with  them  all.  Four  days  after  Webster  had  spoken  William 
H.  Seward  arose  and  dehvered  the  speech  from  which  flowed 
greater  consequences  than  from  all  the  others.  He  declared 
himself  averse  to  the  principles  of  compromise  as  a  rule  by 
which  to  be  guided.  He  examined  the  position  of  Calhoun  and 
declared  it  untenable  on  the  ground  that  it  presupposed  the 
maintenance  of  equilibrium,  which  was  contrary  to  the  laws 
of  growth,  and  could  not  be  maintained  by  the  decree  of  statute 
law. 

His  speech  on  eleventh  of  March.  He  dealt  with  the  position 
of  the  New  Englander  in  caustic  terms.  He  announced  the 
dangerous  dogma  of  individual  discretion  in  obedience  to  law 


192  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

in  the  following  terms,  "The  national  domain  is  ours.  We 
hold  no  arbitrary  power  over  it.  The  Constitution  regulates 
our  stewardship.  The  Constitution  devotes  the  domain  to 
union,  to  justice,  to  defense,  to  welfare,  and  to  liberty.  But 
there  is  a  higher  law  than  the  Constitution,  which  regulates  ' 
our  authority  over  the  domain,  and  devotes  it  to  the  same 
noble  purposes.  The  territory  is  a  part  of  the  common  heri- 
tage of  mankind,  bestowed  upon  them  by  their  Creator. 
Whether,  therefore,  I  regard  the  welfare  of  the  future  inhabi- 
tants of  these  new  Territories,  or  the  security  and  welfare  of 
the  whole  people  of  the  United  States,  I  cannot  consent  to 
introduce  slavery  into  any  part  of  this  continent,  which  is 
now  exempt  from  what  seems  to  me  so  great  an  evil."  This 
utterance  proceeding  not  from  an  agitator,  but  from  a  politi- 
cal thinker,  hailing  as  a  Whig  senator  from  a  State  which  in 
the  preceding  election  had  given  a  greater  vote  to  the  "Free- 
soil"  candidate  than  to  Cass,  the  regular  Democratic  nominee, 
was  gravely  significant.  This  ominous  sign  meant  a  realign- 
ment of  parties  upon  a  sectional  issue. 

The  Democratic  convention  of  1852.  The  first  party  in  the 
field  with  its  candidates  was  the  Democratic,  which  met  in 
national  convention  in  Baltimore,  on  the  first  of  June,  with 
about  three  hundred  delegates  present.  The  two-thirds  rule 
was  immediately  adopted,  which  insured  a  long  contest.  How- 
ever, the  contest  did  not  arouse  bitterness  as  in  the  preceding 
convention.  In  fact  the  convention  was  free  from  party  fac- 
tion. Davis  of  Indiana  was  chosen  to  preside.  On  the  first 
ballot  votes  were  cast  for  nine  candidates:  Cass,  Buchanan, 
Douglas,  Marcy,  Butler,  Houston,  Dodge,  Lane  and  Dickinson. 
The  first  four  stood:  116,  93,  20  and  27  respectively.  This  ratio 
was  continued  with  slight  gains  for  Douglas  down  to  the  thirty- 
first  ballot,  when  he  received  ninety-two  votes  with  the  others 
below  him.  The  next  highest  was  Buchanan  with  seventy- 
nine  votes.  On  the  thirty-fifth  ballot  a  dark  horse  was  brought 
out  in  the  person  of  Pierce  of  New  Hampshire,  who  received 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      193 

fifteen  votes  from  the  Virginia  delegation.  Douglas  then  began 
to  decline  and  Cass  to  increase  with  Marcy  a  close  second.  On 
the  forty-eighth  ballot,  the  four  highest  were:  Marcy,  ninety; 
Cass,  seventy-three ;  Pierce,  fifty-five ;  and  Douglas,  thirty- three. 
On  the  forty-ninth  and  last  ballot.  Pierce  received  282  votes  in 
all,  and  was  declared  the  nominee.  For  Vice-President  ten 
candidates  were  voted  for,  with  W.  R.  King  far  in  the  lead, 
he  having  received  126  votes.  The  next  highest  was  cast  for 
Downs  of  Louisiana,  who  received  but  thirty  votes  in  all.  On 
the  second  ballot  King  was  unanimously  nominated. 

The  platform.  Before  adjournment,  the  convention  adopted 
a  lengthy  platform  of  principles,  reiterating  devotion  to  the 
principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  and  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky 
Resolutions.  On  the  sensitive  point  of  slavery,  the  convention 
declared  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  interfere  with  the 
institution  of  slavery  and  that  all  agitation  upon  the  question 
was  dangerous  to  the  Union,  that  the  Compromise  of  1850 
was  accepted  and  would  be  enforced.  It  also  resolved,  "That 
the  Democratic  party  will  resist  all  attempts  at  renewing  in 
Congress,  or  out  of  it,  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question, 
under  whatever  shape  or  color  the  attempt  may  be  made." 
If  convention  decrees  were  made  seriously,  the  thought  of 
preventing  agitation  upon  this  question,  either  in  or  out  of 
Congress  by  party  resolution,  is  a  matter  of  real  amusement. 

The  Whig  convention.  On  the  sixteenth  of  the  same  month, 
in  the  same  city,  was  held  the  Whig  convention.  Every  State 
was  represented,  three  hundred  delegates  in  all  being  present. 
It  organized  with  Chapman  of  Maryland  in  the  chair.  The 
slavery  agitation  was  to  be  more  seriously  felt  in  the  Whig 
organization  than  in  the  Democratic;  first,  because  the  agita- 
tion had  taken  deeper  hold  upon  the  Whig  leaders;  second,  the 
Whig  organization,  having  been  originally  effected  as  an  oppo- 
sition party,  naturally  held  more  discordant  elements  and 
perhaps  the  greatest  number  of  radical  members;  third,  the 


194  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Whig  party  was  in  power  when  the  question  assumed  an  acute 
stage,  which  fastened  upon  it  the  responsibihty  for  the  dan- 
gerous agitation;  and  last,  the  Whig  election  was  due  to  the 
slave-holding  States,  Taylor  having  received  the  greater  num- 
ber of  votes  from  that  region.  Hence  the  Whigs  were  destined 
to  sail  a  rough  sea.  There  were  three  candidates  before  the 
convention:  Fillmore,  Scott,  and  Webster.  The  former,  as  the 
second  "accidental  President"  by  the  death  of  Taylor,  had 
claims  upon  the  ofi&ce.  To  refuse  to  extend  the  honor  of  a 
nomination,  under  the  circumstances,  was  equivalent  to  a 
refusal  to  endorse  his  administration.  But  Fillmore's  will- 
ingness to  heed  the  clamor  of  the  slave  power  made  him  unac- 
ceptable to  the  radical  wing  which  was  rapidly  growing  in 
influence  in  the  party.  Webster  had  forfeited  his  chances  in 
his  ''Seventh  of  March  speech."  His  position  could  not  win 
friends  in  the  slave  States,  for  he  never  condoned  the  wrongs 
of  the  institution;  and  his  hopes  were  ruined  in  the  North  in 
the  free  States  from  whence  his  support  must  come. 

Winfield  Scott.  Scott  had  been  before  the  people  as  a  presi- 
dential candidate  for  several  years.  Two  national  conven- 
tions had  voted  for  him,  in  the  latter  of  which  he  was  second 
on  the  final  ballot.  He  had  qualifications  of  availability  if  not 
abihty.  He  was  born  in  Virginia,  was  in  the  War  of  1812, 
where  he  had  been  taken  prisoner  and  after  his  release  had 
done  valiant  service  in  the  remainder  of  the  war;  he  had  been 
sent  with  toops  to  Charleston  by  Jackson  to  forestall  nullifica- 
tion; he  engaged  in  the  campaign  against  the  Seminole  Indians, 
and  in  the  Mexican  War  he  had  distinguished  himself  in  con- 
tinuous succession  of  victories,  which  ended  in  his  receiving 
the  surrender  of  the  Mexican  capital  in  1847.  ^^  the  other 
hand  his  reticence  upon  public  measures  shielded  him  from 
the  arrows  of  the  agitators. 

Result  of  the  convention.  On  the  first  ballot  the  vote 
stood:  Scott,  131;  Fillmore,  133;  and  Webster,  29.  Fillmore 
came  within  14  votes  of  being  nominated,  147  being  necessary 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      195 

for  a  choice.  On  the  second  ballot  the  votes  of  the  two  lead- 
ing candidates  were  reversed.  On  the  tenth  ballot  it  stood: 
Scott,  135;  Fillmore,  130;  and  Webster,  29.  This  ratio  con- 
tinued down  to  the  forty-ninth  ballot  when  it  stood:  Scott, 
139;  Fillmore,  122;  Webster,  30.  On  the  fifty-second  ballot 
Scott  was  within  one  vote  of  the  nomination,  and  on  the 
fifty-third  and  last  it  stood:  Scott,  159;  Fillmore,  112;  and 
Webster,  21.  The  irony  of  fate  had  decreed  that  the  ''Ex- 
pounder of  the  Constitution"  should  never  receive  over  the 
pitiably  small  vote  of  thirty-two  in  a  convention  in  which  all 
the  States  were  represented,  and  which  continued  its  sessions 
throughout  six  days.  Again  the  eminent  statesman  was  set 
aside  to  make  place  for  the  popular  hero. 

Free-soil  convention.  On  the  eleventh  of  the  following  Au- 
gust the  Free-soil  Democracy  met  in  convention  in  Pittsburg 
with  Henry  Wilson  of  Massachusetts  in  the  chair.  All  the 
States  sent  representatives.  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia 
free  and  Kentucky  were  also  represented.  It  nominated  John 
P.  Hale  for  President  and  George  W.  Julian  for  Vice-President. 
It  then  adopted  a  lengthy  series  of  resolutions,  twenty-two  in 
number,  generally  confined  to  the  slavery  issue.  The  ninth 
resolution  is  the  suggestive  one.  It  declared  that  the  com- 
promise measures  of  1850  are  "inconsistent  with  all  the  prin- 
ciples and  maxims  of  Democracy,  and  wholly  inadequate  to 
the  settlement  of  the  questions  of  which  they  are  claimed  to 
be  an  adjustment." 

Slavery  in  the  campaign  of  1852.  This  put  three  parties 
before  the  people,  all  of  which  mentioned  the  compromise 
measures  in  their  platforms.  The  Democratic  party  accepted 
them  as  a  final  solution  of  the  question.  The  Whig 
party  declared,  "That  the  series  of  acts  of  the  32d  Con- 
gress, including  the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  are  received  and 
acquiesced  in  by  the  Whig  party  of  the  United  States,  as  a 
settlement  in  principle  and  substance  of  the  dangerous  and 
exciting  questions  which  they  embrace."    It  pledged  itself  to 


196  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

maintain  them  and  deprecated  further  agitation,  which  was 
pronounced  dangerous  and  should  be  discountenanced.  It 
alleged  that  this  system  was  essential  to  maintain  the  nation- 
ahty  of  the  Whig  party  and  the  integrity  of  the  Union.  It 
will  readily  appear  that  the  Whigs,  having  adopted  the  same 
position  upon  the  sensitive  question  of  slavery  as  the  Demo- 
crats had  taken,  left  no  interest  in  the  contest  between  the  old 
parties.  The  Democrats  gained  a  sweeping  victory.  They 
carried  every  State  except  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  Ken- 
tucky and  Tennessee.  This  was  a  triumph  for  the  Free-soil 
party,  although  it  did  not  carry  a  single  State.  It  had  declared 
its  purpose  to  defeat  the  old  parties. 

In  the  Pierce  administration.  Notwithstanding  the  procla- 
mations of  the  party  platforms  that  the  slavery  agitation 
should  cease,  the  administration  of  Pierce  was  to  experience 
some  exciting  events.  It  was  during  his  term  that  the  alarm- 
ing Kansas-Nebraska  agitation  was  on.  This  ugly  situation 
with  all  its  attendant  evils  blasted  the  career  of  another  bril- 
liant man  —  Douglas,  which  loss,  however,  was  compensated 
by  the  discovery  of  still  another  destined  in  due  time  to  shine 
with  a  luster  undimmed  and  prove  title  to  the  rank  of  the 
truest  American  —  Lincoln.  The  rapidly  growing  West  gave 
to  the  nation  the  Territories  which  sought  admission  into  the 
Union  and  which  were  finally  admitted  under  the  unfortunate 
Nebraska  bill.  This  measure  repealed  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise which  had  been  observed  since  its  enactment  in  1820. 
By  this  repeal  the  Territory,  which  up  to  that  time  had  been 
preserved  to  freedom,  was  opened  to  slavery.  The  state  of  the 
public  mind  upon  that  question  in  1854  insured  trouble.  This 
legislation  introduced  and  carried  through  by  Northern  lead- 
ership, at  the  head  of  which  stood  the  brilhant  Douglas,  was 
the  occasion  for  another  reahgnment  of  parties.  It  united 
the  Democrats  and  Whigs  of  the  South,  while  it  divided  the 
Democrats  of  the  North.  As  a  result  it  weakened  the  Whigs 
as  a  party  in  the  nation.    It  strengthened  them  in  the  South, 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     197 

but  weakened  them  in  the  North.  It  now  appears  that  the 
one  dominant  issue  of  slavery  overshadowed  everything  else. 
Calhoun,  Clay  and  Webster  had  gone  to  their  rest  and  their 
places  were  filled  by  men  who  met  the  same  troublesome  issue, 
which  now  extended  beyond  the  realm  of  politics  into  that  of 
religion  where  it  even  succeeded  in  disrupting  churches. 

The  "Know-nothing"  party.  The  first  party  in  the  field 
for  the  contest  of  1856  was  the  American  party,  more  generally 
known  by  the  name  of  "Know-nothing"  party;  a  term  which 
grew  out  of  the  fact  of  its  being  a  secret  order,  and  its  secrecy 
kept  by  its  members,  answering  all  queries  relative  to  its  pro- 
ceeding by  the  simple  phrase,  ''  I  don't  know."  This  political 
element  was  a  revival  of  the  nativist  movement,  which  had 
excited  the  cities  of  New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Boston,  in 
1835  and  again  in  1844.  This  revival  was  occasioned  partly 
by  anti-Catholic  agitation,  which  demanded  regulation  of 
immigration,  revision  of  the  school  codes  looking  toward 
restrictions  upon  the  Catholic  Church,  and  confining  ofhce- 
holding  to  American  citizens.  Its  rapid  growth  was  due  to 
the  anomalous  situation  of  the  Whig  party  whose  policy  in  the 
preceding  years  had  driven  from  its  ranks  most  of  its  virile 
elements,  which  easily  found  a  channel  of  escape  through  the 
American  party.  On  the  igth  of  February,  1856,  in  the  city 
of  Philadelphia,  the  national  council  of  this  party  met  in 
national  convention.  Its  purpose  was  to  outline  a  plan  of 
procedure.  After  three  days  of  deliberation,  which  is  charac- 
terized as  anything  but  deliberation,  it  adopted  a  party  plat- 
form in  sixteen  resolutions.  The  first  resolution  recognizes 
the  protection  of  the  Supreme  Being;  the  second  declares  for 
the  perpetuation  of  the  Union;  the  third,  that  Americans 
must  rule  America;  the  sixth  declares  for  non-intervention 
by  Congress  in  the  affairs  of  the  State;  and  the  thirteenth 
denounces  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 

Its  national  convention.     On  the  anniversary  of  Washing- 
ton's birth  the  national  convention  of  the  party  was  held  in 


198  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Philadelphia.  All  the  States  except  Maine,  Vermont,  Georgia 
and  South  Carolina  were  represented  by  two  hundred  and 
twenty-seven  delegates.  After  permanently  organizing,  the 
convention  took  up  the  matter  of  platform.  There  was  stub- 
born opposition  to  the  recognition  of  the  national  council's 
authority  to  adopt  a  platform  for  the  party.  This  came  from 
the  anti-slavery  wing.  This  latter  element  introduced  a  reso- 
lution declaring,  "That  the  national  council  has  no  authority 
to  prescribe  a  platform  of  principles  for  this  nominating  con- 
vention, and  that  we  will  nominate  for  President  and  Vice- 
President  no  man  who  is  not  in  favor  of  interdicting  the 
introduction  of  slavery  into  territory  north  of  36°  30'  by  Con- 
gressional action."  This  resolution  was  tabled  by  the  vote  of  141 
to  59.  Then  by  the  vote  of  151  to  51  the  convention  proceeded 
to  name  its  candidates,  whereupon  the  anti-slavery  wing  of 
the  convention  withdrew,  and  furnished  the  American  party's 
contribution  to  the  new  party  soon  to  form.  On  an  informal 
ballot  eleven  candidates  received  votes,  with  Fillmore  far  in 
the  lead.  He  was  at  once  named  on  a  formal  ballot  and 
Andrew  Jackson  Donelson  of  Tennessee  was  made  his  running 
mate,  whereupon  the  convention  adjourned  after  three  days' 
stormy  session.  This  party,  which  in  1855  had  carried  New 
York,  Maryland,  Kentucky,  California  and  most  of  New 
England,  received  the  electoral  vote  of  Maryland  Only;  and 
out  of  4,000,000  votes  it  received  but  874,534. 

The  Democratic  convention — 1856.  The  Democratic  party 
was  next  in  the  field.  Its  national  convention,  which  was 
the  seventh  in  its  history,  six  having  been  held  at  Balti- 
more, convened  on  the  2d  of  June,  1856,  in  Cincinnati. 
All  the  States  were  represented  by  at  least  296  delegates.  The 
political  situation  presaged  an  exciting  convention.  The  first 
real  sensation  was  the  presence  of  two  sets  of  delegates  from 
each  of  the  States,  New  York  and  Missouri.  The  defeated 
Missouri  delegation  attempted  to  take  seats  in  the  convention, 
and  barely  escaped  a  riot.     The  door-keeper  was  assaulted 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      199 

and  knocked  to  the  floor.  Both  New  York  delegations,  the 
"Hards"  and  the  "Softs,"  as  they  were  nick-named,  were 
given  seats  each  with  half  the  vote  of  the  State. 

Nomination  of  Buchanan.  The  convention  soon  reflected 
the  embarrassment  growing  out  of  the  sectional  feeling  appar- 
ent throughout  the  country.  The  South  desired  to  endorse 
Pierce's  Kansas  policy  by  giving  him  the  nomination.  But 
the  conservative  element  from  the  North  feared  the  outcome 
and  decided  to  favor  some  other  candidate.  Both  Buchanan 
and  Douglas  had  claims  upon  the  party.  Douglas  had  paid  the 
price  for  Southern  support  by  opening  Northern  territory  to 
Southern  interests,  but  had  failed  to  receive  their  support. 
Buchanan  seemed  to  have  the  favor  of  the  majority  of  the 
anti-Pierce  element.  On  the  first  ballot  the  vote  stood: 
Buchanan,  135;  Pierce,  122;  Douglas,  33;  and  Cass,  5.  On  the 
second  ballot  Buchanan  gained  four,  Pierce  lost  two  and  a 
half,  and  Douglas  fell  to  three  and  a  half  votes.  On  the 
seventh  ballot  Buchanan  received  143^;  Pierce,  89;  and 
Douglas,  58  votes.  On  the  fifteenth  ballot  Buchanan  reached 
168^;  Douglas,  118^;  while  Pierce  fell  to  3I  votes.  On  the 
seventeenth  ballot  Buchanan  was  unanimously  nominated. 
Mr.  Breckinridge  of  Kentucky  was  noininated  for  Vice-Pres- 
ident on  the  second  ballot. 

The  platform.  The  convention  first  adhered  to  the  two- 
thirds  rule,  then  adopted  a  lengthy  platform  of  thirty-one 
resolutions.  It  renewed  its  declaration  of  the  Jeffersonian 
theory  of  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution  and  of  its 
adherence  to  the  principles  of  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky 
Resolutions.  Upon  the  vital  issue  of  slavery,  it  declared  it 
was  settled  by  the  Compromise  of  1850,  and  it  resolved  to 
resist  any  attemi)t  to  open  the  question  either  in  or  out  of 
Congress.  It  declared  that  the  Kansas-Nebraska  legislation 
was  on  the  lines  of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  and  therefore  the 
actual  residents  of  the  Territories  had  the  right  to  form  a  con- 
stitution, with  or  without  slavery,  and  be  admitted  into  the 


200 


POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 


Union  upon  terms  of  perfect  equality  with  the  other  States. 
It  deprecated  the  appearance  of  sectional  strife  and  declared 
that  if  it  were  not  restrained,  it  would  lead  to  civil  war  and 
disunion. 

Slavery  a  sectional  issue.  The  symptoms  of  sectionalism 
created  by  the  presence  of  slavery  in  the  South  could  no  longer 
be  ignored.  At  first  slavery  did  not  assume  a  partizan  issue.  As 
early  as  1847-48,  many  legislatures  in  the  northern  tier  of  States 
had  pronounced  against  its  extension  into  new  territory.    Not 

only  the  Whig  legislatures 
of  Massachusetts  and  New 
York,  but  also  the  Demo- 
cratic legislatures  of  New 
Hampshire,  Maine,  Ohio, 
Illinois  and  Wisconsin,  had 
specifically  declared  against 
it.  In  all  parties  there  was 
a  strong  element  pledged  to 
resist  its  further  extension. 
The  Kansas-Nebraska  leg- 
islation was  the  occasion 
for  the  crystallization  of 
anti-slavery  sentiment  into 
a  political  party.  This  new 
party  took  the  name  of  Re- 
publican, which  was  Jefferson's  choice,  while  he  lived.  It  is 
not  known  definitely  where  this  new  movement  first  started. 
Several  States  claim  the  honor.  Michigan  strenuously  asserts 
her  primacy.  That  State  held  a  semi-centennial  celebration  of 
the  Repubhcan  party's  birth  at  Jackson,  on  the  6th  of  July, 
1904.  At  Jackson,  it  is  claimed,  a  State  convention  was  held 
in  response  to  a  call  signed  by  more  than  ten  thousand  persons. 
The  convention  adopted  resolutions  written  by  J.  M.  Howard 
and  the  name  "Republican"  was  taken  for  the  party.  Oppo- 
sition to  the  further  extension  of  slavery  was  the  leading  plank 


James  Buchanan 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      201 

in  the  platform.  Similar  conventions  were  held  the  same  month 
in  Ohio,  Wisconsin,  Vermont  and  Massachusetts.  By  the  time 
of  the  campaign  of  1856  these  elements  were  fairly  fused  into 
one  party,  henceforth  to  be  known  as  the  Republican  party. 

First  national  Republican  convention.  Its  first  national 
convention  was  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  June  17,  1856, 
in  which  convention  there  were  twenty-two  States  represented, 
including  all  the  non-slave-holding  States,  and  Delaware, 
Maryland  and  Kentucky.  It  was  largely  attended,  at  least 
450  delegates  were  present  and  took  part  in  the  proceedings. 
It  placed  in  the  chair  as  the  presiding  officer,  Henry  S.  Lane 
of  Indiana.  There  was  but  one  thought  dominant,  namely, 
the  best  way  to  restrain  the  further  spread  of  the  institution 
of  African  slavery.  The  presence  of  so  many  delegates  who 
had  previously  been  active  in  other  parties  was  conclusive 
against  the  charge  of  factionalism.  During  a  season  of  speech- 
making  a  tone  of  triumph  was  everywhere  observed.  On  an 
informal  ballot  for  candidates  the  result  showed  359  votes  for 
Fremont  of  Cahfornia,  and  196  for  McLean  of  Ohio.  Sumner 
and  Seward  also  received  votes.  Fremont  was  eventually 
nominated  by  a  unanimous  vote.  An  informal  ballot  for 
Vice-President  showed  votes  for  fifteen  candidates,  among 
whom  were  some  names  destined  to  be  placed  high  on  honor's 
scroll.  W.  L.  Dayton  led  with  259  votes,  with  Abraham 
Lincoln  second  with  no.  Dayton  was  accordingly  unani- 
mously nominated. 

Its  platform.  The  convention  then  adopted  the  first  Repub- 
lican platform  of  principles.  It  declared  its  belief  in,  and 
adherence  to,  the  principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  asserted  the 
right  of  Congress  to  prevent  the  further  extension  of  slavery 
and  pronounced  slavery  and  polygamy  twin  relics  of  barba- 
rism. It  denounced  the  policy  of  the  party  in  power  in  its 
dealings  with  Kansas.  It  pronounced  in  favor  of  the  con- 
struction of  a  Pacific  Railroad.     It  also  declared  in  favor  of 


202  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

liberal  appropriations  for  public  improvements.  Its  well- 
known  unanimity  of  purpose,  its  concise  statement  of  principles, 
its  unanimous  nominations,  and  its  enthusiastic  proceedings 
created  much  speculation  on  the  part  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Democratic  party. 

The  Whigs'  last  convention.  On  the  seventeenth  of  the 
following  September,  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  the  last  con- 
vention of  the  Whig  party  met  with  delegates  from  all  the 
States  but  Michigan,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  CaUfornia  and  Texas. 
Bates  of  Missouri  presided.  But  httle  enthusiasm  was  evinced. 
The  convention  proved  that  the  death  blow  had  already  been 
struck,  and  that  the  party  of  Clay  and  Webster  was  suffering 
the  pangs  of  speedy  dissolution.  It  presented  no  candidates, 
but  simply  endorsed  the  "Know-nothing"  standard-bearers. 
It  declared  its  platform  in  a  series  of  eight  resolutions  deplor- 
ing the  existence  of  a  sectional  strife  —  of  the  creation  of 
parties  upon  geographical  lines.  It  reaffirmed  its  devotion 
to  the  Constitution  and  the  Union  and  recommended  that  the 
people  should  support  a  candidate  committed  to  no  section. 

Political  situation  in  1856.  The  campaign  was  one  of  the 
most  exciting  in  the  country's  history.  It  was  soon  discovered 
that  the  new  organization  was  growing  with  amazing  rapidity. 
The  early  State  elections  indicated  Democratic  defeat  which 
in  a  measure  aided  in  showing  the  inroads  the  new  party  was 
making.  The  result  of  the  contest  was  the  election  of  Buchanan, 
who,  however,  fell  far  short  of  a  majority  of  the  popular  vote. 
The  electoral  vote  stood:  Buchanan,  174;  Fremont,  114;  and 
Fillmore,  8.  The  fact  that  upon  an  issue  which  had  taxed  the 
best  brain  and  heart  of  the  nation,  a  new  party  could  form 
which  in  a  single  year  could  crystallize  public  sentiment  suf- 
ficiently to  carry  eleven  prominent  States  of  the  thirty  form- 
ing the  Union,  was  fair  warning  to  the  party  of  Jefferson  and 
Jackson  that  it  must  satisfactorily  meet  the  issue  or  be  disas- 
trously defeated.  With  this  conviction  the  Democratic 
Administration  of  Buchanan  opened. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      203 

Influence  of  events  upon  theory.  With  the  accession  to 
the  presidency  of  Andrew  Jackson,  it  appeared  that  the  parties 
changed  front  on  poHtical  theory;  that  the  Democrats  as  repre- 
sented by  the  President  had  embraced  the  Hamiltonian,  while 
the  Whigs  led  by  Clay  had  adopted  the  Jeffersonian,  theory. 
This  is  not  necessarily  so.  It  would  be  nearer  true  to  assert 
that  the  party  in  power  found  it  necessary  to  employ  the 
Hamilton  theory,  while  it  would  be  natural  for  the  party  out  of 
power  to  take  the  opposite  view.  Moreover,  a  party  can  not 
be  fairly  judged  by  the  conduct  of  the  head.  The  very  fact  of 
a  man's  being  placed  at  the  head  makes  him  at  once  a  leader 
to  be  courted  and  feared.  Jackson's  imperious  nature  enabled 
him  to  secure  a  following  to  the  temporary  abandonment  of 
political  theory.  His  was  the  passion  of  power.  His  rule  was 
Ceesarean.  His  character  was  nine-tenths  will,  Httle  emotion, 
and  not  a  high  grade  of  intellectuaHty.  His  influence  was  sure 
to  show  in  the  extension  of  the  executive  function.  A  close 
analysis  of  the  poKtical  situation  of  the  time  will  show  that 
Jefferson's  expressed  fears  of  Jackson's  accession  to  the  presi- 
dency were  due  to  this  characteristic. 

As  seen  in  the  careers  of  public  men.  It  will  also  show  that 
this  characteristic  compelled  Calhoun,  who  was  at  the  time 
the  greatest  exponent  of  self-government,  to  break  with  Jack- 
son and  later  to  join  Clay  and  Webster  in  a  sort  of  conspiracy 
Jio  censure  Jackson  for  what  they  regarded  as  unconstitutional 
exercise  of  power.  While  it  is  admitted  that  this  defection  did 
not  materially  cripple  the  party  in  control,  it  did  call  the  party 
back  to  its  legitimate  basis;  the  defense  of  the  rights  of  the 
States  and  the  liberties  of  the  people. 

Jackson's  theory.  While  the  whole  nation  is  for  all  time 
indebted  to  the  "Sage  of  the  Hermitage"  for  his  vigorous 
enforcement  of  national  authority  when  it  was  contested  by  the 
claims  of  State  Sovereignty  in  the  case  of  South  Carolina  in 
1832,  yet  no  student  of  American  history  will  seriously  deny 
that  his  position  was  due  not  so  much  to  his  belief  in  that 


204  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

fundamental  theory  of  government  as  to  his  desire  to  compel 
obedience.  It  never  pained  him  to  enforce  the  laws  upon  the 
recalcitrant,  whether  in  the  army  or  in  the  nation.  The  point 
on  which  the  dispute  arose  being  the  tariff  question,  the 
incident  would  naturally  throw  the  President  into  the  seeming 
position  of  defending  the  poHcy  of  protection.  This  statement 
is  not  wholly  true,  but,  on  the  contrary,  he  regarded  the  policy 
as  local  and  doubted  its  constitutionality.  In  every  thing 
except  the  enforcement  of  extreme  prerogative  in  the  Execu- 
tive, Jackson  was  Democratic. 

The  Democratic  party  and  State  rights.  The  regal  leader- 
ship of  Jackson  enabled  him  to  carry  the  people  with  him. 
This  fact  committed  the  Democratic  party  against  the  theory 
of  State  Sovereignty,  but  not  State  rights.  The  extreme  view 
of  South  CaroHna  as  expressed  in  the  Nulhfication  Ordinance 
warned  the  party  against  the  possibility  of  too  radical  demo- 
cratic theory,  and  consequently  silence  was  observed  for  some 
time  upon  Jefferson's  fundamental  theory:  liberty  of  the 
individual  and  the  rights  of  the  State.  However,  when  the 
troublesome  question  of  slavery  arose,  the  doctrines  were  again 
proclaimed  in  no  uncertain  tones.  The  party  repeated  in 
every  platform  from  1840  to  the  time  of  the  Civil  War  the 
policy  of  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution  and  pledged 
itself  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  States  against  undue  inter- 
ference by  the  national  government.  , 

The  difference  between  parties  constitutional.  The  oppo- 
sition to  the  re-chartering  of  the  Bank,  wliich  found  its  way 
into  almost  every  platform  from  the  time  it  received  the  death 
sentence  from  Jackson  to  the  Civil  War,  should  be  placed 
upon  a  constitutional  basis.  Upon  the  same  grounds  should 
be  placed  the  opposition  to  the  Whig  policy  of  internal  improve- 
ments and  the  American  system  of  protection.  When  these 
issues  were  superseded  by  the  more  acute  one  of  slavery,  the 
Democratic  party  sought  to  appease  the  wrath  of  the  South 
and  allay  the  fears  of  the  slavocracy  by  denying  to  Congress 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      205 

the  power  to  interfere  with  the  domestic  institutions  of  the 
several  States.  This  constitutional  doctrine  of  State  protec- 
tion was  extended  to  the  Territories  as  well  as  to  other  places 
where  Congress  had  control,  as  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
the  dock  yards,  navy  yards,  etc. 

Democratic  party  holds  to  the  Resolutions  of  1798-1799.  In 
1856,  when  the  Republican  party  disturbed  the  repose  of  Dem- 
ocratic leaders,  the  latter  in  convention  assembled  took 
advanced  position  on  the  doctrine  of  State  rights  and  resolved 
''  That  the  Democratic  party  will  faithfully  abide  by  and  uphold 
the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1797 
and  1798,  and  in  the  report  of  Mr.  Madison  to  the  Virginia 
legislature  in  1799;  that  it  adopts  these  principles  as  constitu- 
ting one  of  the  main  foundations  of  its  poHtical  creed  and  is 
resolved  to  carry  them  out  in  their  obvious  meaning  and 
import."  This  was  true  Jeffersonian  theory.  While  the  pro- 
nouncement was  stimulated  by  the  critical  situation  of  the 
Union  over  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  issue,  it  did  no  violence 
to  Democratic  doctrine  to  make  it.  It  was  the  determination 
of  the  slavocracy  to  use  the  principle  to  protect  the  peculiar 
institution  that  led  to  Civil  War.  This  extreme,  however, 
was  not  reached  by  the  whole  party,  but  only  by  the  slave- 
holding  section  of  it. 

Slavery  and  State  rights.  When  the  issue  was  made  up 
between  Secession  and  national  integrity,  which  precipitated 
war,  the  greatest  possible  test  was  submitted  to  the  Strict 
Constructionists.  It  was  the  extreme  test  which  was  probably 
the  legitimate  outcome  of  the  theory  of  liberty  of  the  individ- 
ual and  rights  of  the  State  carried  to  an  ultimate  conclusion. 
In  this  crisis  the  party  of  Jefferson  divided  upon  the  slavery 
question  rather  than  political  theory,  and  cast  2,223,110  votes 
for  its  two  candidates:  1,375,157  for  the  leader  in  the  free  States 
and  847,953  for  the  leader  in  the  slave  States.  The  Hamil- 
tonian  theory,  now  represented  by  Lincoln,  cast  about  the 
same  number  of  votes,  but  Lincoln  received  only  1,866,452 


2o6  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

votes.  In  four  years  the  Jeffersonian  following  fell  off  in  the 
canvass  420,873  votes,  while  the  Hamiltonian  gained  347,213. 

The  Democrats  and  the  war.  This  disparity  can  be 
accounted  for  upon  at  least  two  grounds,  namely:  the  existence 
of  the  war  favored  the  vote  cast  for  the  party  in  power,  which 
was  prosecuting  it  to  a  successful  end ;  the  right  to  vote  was 
extended  to  the  soldier  on  the  field  which  increased  the  vote 
of  the  party  in  power.  The  extreme  length  to  which  the 
slavocracy  had  carried  its  contention  caused  many  desertions 
from  the  party.  However,  it  must  be  conceded  that  while  the 
following  of  the  opposition  did  not  support  Lincoln,  the  greater 
portion  of  it  did  support  the  government.  It  is  unfair  to  assert 
that  the  1,802,237  men  who  voted  for  McClellan  against  Lin- 
coln in  1864  opposed  the  war,  although  it  was  prosecuted  by 
the  party  in  opposition  to  them.  However,  the  blow  which 
war  gave  the  Jefferson  theory  was  almost  sufficient  to  destroy 
the  party  in  both  the  State  and  the  nation,  except  in  the  slave- 
holding  section  of.  the  country. 

The  Democracy  of  Lincoln.  Upon  the  question  of  slavery, 
Lincoln  and  his  party  became  the  exponents  of  the  Jefferson 
theory  of  individual  liberty.  Jefferson  himself  never  went 
further  in  the  advocacy  of  this  theory  than  Lincoln  went  in 
practise.  But  it  would  not  be  correct  to  argue  from  this  that 
the  two  men  were  votaries  of  the  same  political  theories.  Jef- 
ferson espoused  the  doctrine  of  individual  liberty  from  clearly 
defined  belief,  while  Lincoln  put  it  into  execution  as  a  war 
measure.  Lincoln  was  not  unlike  Jefferson  in  his  supreme 
faith  in  the  people.  Perhaps  he  was  ne\nEr  surpassed  in  this 
point.  But  in  all  that  distinguished  the  loose  from  the  strict 
construction,  national  supremacy  from  State  Sovereignty, 
the  Hamiltonian  from  the  Jeffersonian  theory  of  poHtics, 
Lincoln  essentially  belonged  to  the  former  in  both  profession 
and  practise.  ^ 


CHAPTER  X 

JOHN   CALDWELL   CALHOUN,   THE   EXPONENT    OF 
NULLIFICATION 

Dramatic  figure.  One  of  the  most  dramatic  figures  in  the 
political  history  of  the  United  States  was  he  whose  name  heads 
this  chapter;  dramatic  because  of  the  tragic  seriousness  with 
which  he  defended  losing  issues.  In  the  zenith  of  his  power  he 
espoused  for  the  sake  of  a  theory  the  dogma  of  State  Sover- 
eignty, and  later  in  life  became  not  only  the  defender,  but  the 
eulogist,  of  an  institution  which  civilization  had  decreed  must 
cease.  The  brilliancy  with  which  he  espoused  his  favorite 
dogma  and  the  sincerity  he  manifested  in  defense  of  slavery 
render  his  career  an  interesting  chapter  in  the  political  history 
of  the  country. 

The  real  issue  between  parties.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  the  first  formal  pronouncement  of  the  State  rights  the- 
ory was  made  'by  the  legislatures  of  Kentucky  and  Virginia 
in  the  Resolutions  of  1798,  1799,  and  1800.  Other  States  at 
various  times  promulgated  the  same  theory.  But  the  most  con- 
spicuous action,  aside  from  that  of  Kentucky  and  Virginia, 
was  that  of  the  Hartford  convention  in  1814.  Radical  meth- 
ods were  threatened  by  that  convention  in  relief  of  the  States 
from  the  burdens  entailed  by  the  general  government.  The 
war  of  181 2  had  largely  destroyed  the  commerce  of  New  Eng- 
land. This  was  declared  unnecessary  and  the  government 
was  assailed.  Quite  naturally  the  party  in  power  —  the  Jcffcr- 
sonian,  or  the  Strict  Constructionists  —  defended  its  action, 

207 


2o8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

as  the  Hamiltonians,  or  the  Loose  Constructionists,  defended 
the  enactment  of  the  Ahen  and  Sedition  Laws  against  which 
the  Resolutions  of  1798-1800  were  passed.  The  dominant 
party  sought  rehef  in  a  threefold  policy,  comprehending  the 
tariff  with  the  protection  feature,  a  National  Bank,  and 
internal  improvements. 

Early  recognition  of  the  talents  of  Calhoun.  Conspicuous 
in  this  remedial  legislation  was  John  C.  Calhoun,  whose  bril- 
liant parts  led  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
Henry  Clay,  to  place  him  upon  the  Committee  of  Foreign 
Affairs  where  he  at  once  took  high  rank  among  his  colleagues. 
His  first  speech  in  Congress  was  made  before  he  was  thirty 
years  old.  It  was  upon  the  war  resolutions  in  December,  181 1. 
He  plunged  with  the  vigor  of  buoyant  youth  and  penetrating 
intellect  into  the  support  of  President  Madison  in-  the  prose- 
cution of  the  war.  At  the  close  of  the  war  he  was  one  of  the 
most  active  in  the  legislation  designed  to  reheve  the  country 
of  the  inevitable  effects  of  war.  Hence  his  espousal  of  the 
nationalizing  policy.  When  the  question  of  constitutionality 
was  injected  by  the  opponents  of  the  Administration,  he 
answered  it  upon  the  ground  of  national  defense.  As  Monroe's 
Secretary  of  War  he  gave  no  sign  of  change  of  theory,  but 
was  consistent  in  requiring  an  effective  administration  of  the 
government.  His  rapid  appreciation  put  him  in  the  ranks  of 
those  mentioned  for  the  presidency.  He  withdrew  from  the 
race  for  the  presidency  and  accepted  the  nomination  for  the 
vice-presidency. 

Calhoun  and  the  administration  of  Adams.  Calhoun  affected 
to  take  offense  at  this  thwarting  of  the  people's  will.  He  pre- 
tended that  the  House  had  no  right  to  ignore  the  pleasure  of  the 
voters.  Therein  the  President  and  Vice-President  disagreed. 
There  is  evidence  that  Calhoun  took  dehght  in  the  bitter 
opposition  waged  against  the  President  from  the  opening  of 
the  administration  to  its  close.  At  any  rate  it  is  true  that  as 
presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  he  permitted  the  most  scurrilous 


John  C.  Calhoun 


209 


2IO  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

attacks  upon  the  President  by  leaders  of  the  opposition.  He 
regarded  the  appointment  of  Henry  Clay  to  the  Secretaryship 
of  State  as  the  result  of  a  bargain,  although  abundant  evidence 
clears  Clay  of  suspicion. 

Calhoun  as  Vice-President.  As  Vice-President  it  was  his 
duty  to  preside  over  the  Senate.  This  duty  precluded  his 
taking  part  in  the  legislation  of  that  body.  Only  in  case  of  a 
tie  vote  was  the  presiding  officer  permitted  to  vote.  This 
circumstance  favored  Calhoun's  deliberative  turn  of  mind  to 
weigh  and  consider  policies  in  which  he  had  no  part  in  enfor- 
cing. The  conditions  which  won  his  support  for  the  national- 
izing policy  of  a  protective  tariff,  National  Bank,  and  internal 
improvements  were  no  longer  present.  A  surplus  was  being 
collected  in  the  United  States  treasury  and  the  national  debt 
was  soon  to  be  paid  off. 

Calhoun  of  1824  in  contrast  with  himself  in  1816.  Already 
a  well-defined  opposition  to  the  protective  policy  was  develop- 
ing in  the  South  and  in  the  North.  When  the  tariff  measure 
came  up  in  1824,  it  was  discovered  that  there  was  great  con- 
fusion as  compared  with  the  legislation  of  1816.  The  support 
of  the  measure  was  no  longer  from  the  Calhoun  contingent, 
nor  its  opposition  from  the  Webster  influence.  From  the 
enactment  of  this  law  the  question  assumed  a  sectional  inter- 
est. The  cotton  States  insisted  that  the  policy  was  against 
their  interest,  while  the  manufacturing  sections  demanded  its 
continuance.  In  1827,  in  the  city  of  Harrisburg,  the  manu- 
facturers' convention  urged  upon  the  country  the  need  of  the 
adoption  of  the  "American  system."  In  1828  Congress  enacted 
a  law  which  responded  to  the  desires  of  the  manufactu  ing 
interests.  By  this  time  the  State  of  South  Carolina  was  becom- 
ing enraged  to  the  point  of  resistance. 

The  "  Exposition."  The  enforced  silence  of  Calhoun  was  now 
broken.  At  the  request  of  friends  in  his  State  he  wrote  liis 
"Exposition."  This  document  was  written  in  1828  primarily 
to   show  that   a   law  like    the  "bill  of  Abominations"  was 


ORGANIZATION    IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     211 

unconstitutional  and  therefore  of  no  force;  that  it  favored  one 
section  as  against  the  other,  that  it  placed  the  burdens  upon 
one  section  and  bestowed  the  benefits  upon  another,  that 
although  it  falls  under  the  head  of  tax,  it  is  really  a  bounty.  He 
asserts  that  the  staple  States  are  by  nature  shut  out  from  the 
benefits  of  the  manufacturer  and  must  remain  largely  the 
exporting  section  and  therefore  the  chief  sufferer. 

The  doctrines  of  the  "  Exposition."  He  then  enters  into  an 
exposition  of  his  political  theory.  All  government  rests  upon 
the  principle  that  "irresponsible  power  is  inconsistent  with 
liberty  and  must  corrupt  those  who  exercise  it."  There  is  a 
tendency  to  centralization  of  power.  The  framers  of  the  Con- 
stitution provided  against  this  tendency  by  balancing  the 
powers  between  the  general  government  and  the  States,  allow- 
ing the  former  to  exercise  only  those  which  are  expressly 
delegated  and  reserving  all  others  to  the  States.  Our  Hberty 
is  endangered  most  by  the  abuse  of  delegated  powers  and  a 
tyranny  of  the  stronger  over  the  weaker  interest.  He  stated 
his  view  of  the  powers  of  the  States  and  general  government 
as  follows: 

Our  system  consists  of  two  distinct  governments.  The  general  pow- 
ers expressly  delegated  to  the  general  government  are  subject  to  its  sole 
and  separate  control,  and  the  States  cannot,  without  violating  the  con- 
stitutional compact,  check  or  counteract  its  movements  so  long  as  they 
are  confined  to  the  proper  sphere.  So  also  the  peculiar  and  local  powers 
reserved  to  the  States  are  subject  to  their  exclusive  control.  Nor  can 
the  general  government  interfere  in  any  manner  without  violating  the 
Constitution.  The  Constitution  has  formed  the  States  into  a  commu- 
nity only  to  the  extent  of  their  common  interest,  leaving  them  distinct 
and  independent  as  to  all  other  interests. 

He  declared  that  so  long  as  this  nice  balance  was  maintained, 
like  the  equable  pressure  from  the  atmosphere,  all  would 
benefit. 

Nullification.  Then  came  the  announcement  of  the  far- 
reaching   proposition  that  whether  the   general   government 


212  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

has  violated  the  relation  between  it  and  the  States  is  a  question 
for  the  State  to  decide  so  far  as  it  is  concerned;  that  the  State 
is  the  judge,  not  only  of  the  infraction  but  of  the  remedy  as  well. 
This  is  an  elaborate  defense  of  the  theory  of  State  interposi- 
tion, of  State  veto,  of  nulKfication.  Here  is  where  Calhoun 
certainly  parts  company  with  Jefferson  and  Madison,  although 
he  strenuously  insisted  that  he  was  in  consonance  with  the 
theory  expressed  in  the  Resolutions  of  1799.  The  clause  to 
which  he  constantly  reverted  is  found  in  Jefferson's  draft,  and 
is  in  these  words: 

In  cases  of  abuse  of  delegated  powers,  the  members  of  the  general 
government  being  chosen  by  the  people,  a  change  by  the  people  would 
be  the  constitutional  remedy;  but  when  powers  have  been  assumed  which 
have  not  been  delegated,  a  nullification  of  the  act  is  the  right  remedy; 
that  every  S.tate  has  a  natural  right  in  cases  not  within  the  compact 
(casus  noil  foederis)  to  nullify  of  their  own  authority  all  assumption  of 
power  by  others  within  their  limit;  that  without  the  right  they  would 
be  under  the  dominion,  absolute  and  unHmited,  of  whatsoever  might 
exercise  this  right  of  judgment  for  them. 

Jefferson  and  nullification.  This  passage  was  in  the  origi- 
nal draft  of  Jefferson,  but  was  not  incorporated  in  the  reso- 
lutions adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  Kentucky.  Upon  this 
resolution  Calhoun  placed  his  claim  that  he  was  announcing  the 
position  of  the  founder  of  the  Democratic  party  when  he  wrote 
in  his  ''Exposition."  "If  the  State  should  decide  that  the 
question  of  which  we  complain  is  unconstitutional,  it  will  then 
determine  in  what  manner  they  ought  to  be  declared  null  and 
void  within  the  limits  of  the  State;  which  solemn  declaration, 
based  upon  the  rights  as  a  member  of  Union,  would  be  obliga- 
tory not  only  on  her  own  citizens  but  on  the  general  government 
itself.  "  The  author  of  this  remarkable  statement  contended 
that  nulKfication  was  a  constitutional  remedy,  that  nullifica- 
tion was  not  Secession;  that  the  nullifying  State  was  still  in 
the  Union  maintaining  its  true  relation  to  the  co-States  and 
the  general  government.     This  document  which  comprises 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      213 

fifty-seven  pages  in  his  Works  closed  with  the  declaration  that 
if  the  tariff  system  be  persevered  in,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  State 
to  interpose,  —  "a  duty  to  herself,  to  the  Union,  to  the  present 
and  to  future  generations,  and  to  the  cause  of  liberty  the  world 
over,  to  arrest  the  progress  of  usurpation  which,  if  not  arrested, 
must  in  its  consequence  corrupt  the  public  morals  and  destroy 
the  liberty  of  the  country." 

Reception  of  the  exposition.  Since  this  exposition  came 
from  the  pen  of  the  Vice-President  whose  oath  bound  him  to 
protect  the  Constitution,  much  bitterness  from  various  quar- 
ters toward  him  was  manifested.  On  the  other  hand,  when  at 
the  close  of  the  session  he  returned  home  he  was  received  with 
a  filial  affection  by  the  people  of  his  State  who  appealed  to 
him  to  know  what  action  should  be  taken. 

Second  pronouncement.  Believing  the  election  and  inaugu- 
ration of  Jackson  would  rectify  the  conditions  complained  of,  he 
urged  no  action.  These  hopes  were  soon  shattered  and  on  the 
26th  of  July,  183 1,  Calhoun  made  his  second  pronouncement 
in  his  Address  on  Federal  Relations,  in  which  he  strenuously 
contended  that  his  theory  was  consonant  with  loyalty  to 
the  Union:  "I  yield  to  none,  I  trust,  in  a  deep  and  sincere 
attachment  to  our  poHtical  institutions,  and  the  Union  of 
these  States.  I  never  breathed  an  opposite  sentiment."  He 
declared  he  had  ever  held  the  Union  as  the  preserver  of  the 
liberty  of  the  people,  but  as  between  liberty  and  union,  the 
former  must  be  preserved.  It  was  in  this  address  that  he 
announced  the  theory  that  the  relation  between  the  general 
government  and  the  States  was  that  of  agency,  in  which 
the  States  were  the  principal,  and  the  general  government  the 
agent.  The  Constitution  is  a  compact  for  the  States  and  the 
general  government  was  but  its  creature.  It  is  therefore  "a 
government  emanating  from  a  compact  between  sovereigns, 
partaking  in  its  natural  object  of  the  character  of  a  joint  com- 
mission appointed  to  superintend  and  administer  the  interests 
in  which  all  are  jointly  concerned;     but  having  beyond  its 


214  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

proper  sphere  no  more  power  than  if  it  did  not  exist."  The 
"proper  sphere"  in  this  case  was  the  question  for  the  States  to 
determine,  otherwise  the  principal  is  subject  to  the  agent,  the 
creator  to  the  creature. 

His  report  to  South  Carolina.  In  the  following  November 
he  prepared  for  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina  a  report  on 
Federal  Relations,  in  which  he  repeated  the  tenets  of  his 
dogma;  that  the  Constitution  was  a  compact  between  the 
States;  that  the  government  was  the  creature  of  the  compact 
in  the  relation  of  principal  and  agent;  that  the  State  was  judge 
of  the  infraction  of  its  relation  to  the  general  government; 
that  the  State  had  the  constitutional  right  to  veto  the  uncon- 
stitutional act;  that  the  primary  allegiance  of  the  citizen  was 
to  the  State;  that  the  State  was  both  in  and  out  of  the  Union 
at  the  same  time;  in  as  pertains  to  the  delegated  powers,  and 
out  as  pertains  to  the  reserved  powers. 

View  of  history.  In  this  report  he  drew  upon  the  history 
of  the  operations  of  the  colonies  and  the  government  to  prove 
his  contention.  He  called  attention  to  the  wording  of  Lee's 
resolution:  ''These  colonies  are  and  of  right  ought  to  be  free 
and  independent  States,"  with  emphasis  upon  the  last  words. 
He  declared  that,  as  independent  States,  they  announced  and 
secured  their  independence;  then,  as  independent  States,  they 
entered  into  the  confederation  and  conducted  the  government 
under  the  "league  of  friendship"  in  which  each  State  retained 
its  sovereignty  by  express  stipulation;  as  independent  sover- 
eign States,  they  entered  the  Federal  convention  and  there 
acted  as  such;  as  independent  sovereign  States,  they  called 
conventions  to  act  upon  the  ratification  or  rejection  of  the 
Constitution  as  it  came  from  the  convention.  The  Federal 
character  of  the  government,  for  which  the  Constitution  was 
to  become  the  organic  law,  was  shown  by  the  specific  require- 
ment that  the  ratification  of  three-fourths  of  the  States  was 
necessary  to  give  it  effect,  and  then  only  among  the  States 
which  had  ratified  it.    The  States  refusing  to  ratify  it  were 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      215 

regarded  as  foreign  in  their  relation  to  the  government  under 
the  Constitution.  This  was  proved  in  the  case  of  North  Caro- 
lina and  Rhode  Island  which  refused  for  a  time  to  ratify. 

His  conclusions.     He  insisted  that  this  Federal  character 
which  presupposed  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  was  still 
retained  by  the  States  after  ratification,  as  revealed  in  the 
article  providing  for  amendment,  which  stipulated  the  ratifi- 
cation of  the  same  majority  of  the  States  acting  as  States. 
Here  his  argument  fails.    He  did  not  mention  that  when  the 
necessary  majority  ratified  the  amendment  it  became  opera- 
tive in  the  States  which  refused  to  ratify  with  equal  force  as 
in  the  ratifying  States.    He  claimed  that  the  method  of  electing 
senators  and  the  President  recognized  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States.    With  much  confidence  he  demanded  to  knov/  by  what 
specific  act,  and  at  what  time  the  government  ceased  to  be  a 
Federal,  to  become  a  consohdated  Union.    He  admitted  that 
the  States  had  granted  sovereignty  to  the  general  government 
in  certain  matters,  but  insisted  that  they  retained  all  they  did 
not  grant.     He  here  promulgated  the  principle  of  division  of 
sovereignty:  a  part  in  the  nation  and  a  part  in  the  States.    The 
former  is  sovereign  in  delegated  powers  and  in  those  only, 
while  the  latter  is  sovereign  in  all  powers  reserved.    The  gen- 
eral government  could  do  only  what  had  been  delegated  to  it 
by  the  States  through  the  Constitution,  while  the  States  could 
do  all  things  not  delegated  by  them  to  the  general  govern^ 
ment  through  the  Constitution  or  denied  to  them  by  it.     The 
constitution-making  power  is  in   the  States  while  the  law- 
making power  is  in  the  government.    The  latter  must  be  sub- 
ject to  the  former  else  the  creature  becomes  superior  to  its 
creator.     Any  law  which  ignores  this  relation  is  void  for  want 
of  sanction. 

Address  to  the  people  of  South  Carolina.  At  the  close  of 
its  session  in  183 1  the  Legislature  of  his  State  requested  him  to 
prepare  an  address  to  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  to  which 
he  frankly  responded: 


2i6  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

"  To  us  it  seems  an  inevitable  consequence  that  a  State,  as  a  party  to 
a  compact,  and  reserving  under  it  the  separate  and  exclusive  exercise  of 
important  sovereign  powers,  has  a  right  to  judge  of  its  infractions,  and 
to  interpose  her  authority  for  the  maintenance  of  her  reserved  rights  — 
she  being  the  sole  judge  of  the  manner  and  measure  of  her  redress 
—  and  that  the  exercise  of  this  right  is  neither  Secession  nor  rebellion,  — 
the  State's  object  being  simply  to  protect  its  citizens  against  encroach- 
ments; an  act  in  its  principles  and  object  perfectly  distinguishable  from 
either  of  the  others,  and  which  cannot  be  confounded  with  them  with- 
out a  strange  confusion  of  ideas." 

If  the  principle  of  State  interposition  is  denied,  there  is  no 
protection  of  the  minority  against  the  tyranny  of  the  majority. 
A  majority  unrestrained  is  no  less  despotism  than  the  one  man 
power  in  the  monarchies  of  the  past.  This  fear  of  the  majority 
revealed  a  spirit  of  sectionalism. 

The  interests  of  North  and  South  compared.  He  compared 
the  interests  of  the  North  with  those  of  the  South,  saying: 
''They  are  in  favor  of  high  duties,  we  of  low;  they  advocate 
their  increase  and  continuance,  we  their  diminution  and  repeal; 
they  support  extravagant  appropriations  for  internal  improve- 
ments, we  oppose  these  and  all  other  wasteful  expenditures; 
and,  finally,  they  favor  a  consolidated  government  of  unlimited 
powers,  and  we,  a  Federal  and  limited  one.  We  find  them  in  a 
fixed  and  settled  majority  and  we  in  a  like  minority."  He 
argued  that  had  this  balance  of  power  in  favor  of  the  manufac- 
turing sections  been  the  result  of  natural  law,  his  people 
would  not  have  made  complaint.  But  it  had  been  due  to  a 
policy  of  favoritism  on  the  part  of  the  general  government, 
which  gives  evidence  of  a  desire  to  continue  it.  The  only  con- 
stitutional restraint  of  this  deplorable  tendency  in  his  judgment 
was  nullification.  He  still  insisted  that  the  Constitution  in 
its  sphere  was  the  only  sure  guaranty  of  the  nation's  safety  and 
respectability  abroad,  and  harmony  and  peace  at  home.  He 
urged  a  correction  of  the  abuse  without  the  hazard  of  benefits. 

Sincere  advocacy.  Up  to  this  time  the  numerous  pronounce- 
ments of  Calhoun  were  entirely  free  from  bitterness,  but  tinged 


ORGAXIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     217 

with  a  spirit  of  sadness.  The  people  of  Ms  State  were  rapidly 
approaching  what  he  and  they  beheved  to  be  a  crisis.  The 
agitation  in  Congress  resulted  in  a  lowering  of  the  duties  pre- 
scribed in  the  bill  of  1828,  but  the  bill  still  retained  the  protect- 
ive feature.  The  measure  was  passed,  signed  by  the  President, 
and  became  law  on  the  14th  day  of  July,  1832.  All  hope  which 
might  have  been  placed  in  the  Administration's  abandonment 
of  the  protective  theory,  w^as  now  gone. 

Letter  to  Governor  Hamilton.  On  the  last  day  of  July 
Governor  Hamilton,  in  a  letter,  requested  Calhoun  to  submit 
a  fuller  statement  of  his  views  relative  to  the  right  of  a  State 
to  interpose  against  a  Federal  law  which  the  State  might 
deem  unconstitutional.  In  response  to  this  request  on  the 
28th  of  August,  1832,  Calhoun  submitted  a  carefully  written 
treatise  upon  the  theory  of  the  relation  between  the  States 
and  the  general  government  which  is  the  most  comprehensive 
yet  from  his  pen.  The  main  points  may  be  summarized  as 
follows: 

1.  The  Constitution  is  a  compact  made  by  sovereign  States. 

2.  The  relation  is  that  of  agency;  the  States  are  the  principal,  the 
government  the  agent. 

3.  The  Union  is  that  of  States  as  communities,  not  a  union  of  indi- 
viduals. 

4.  Citizens  knew  no  fealty  except  State  fealty  until  after  ratification, 
which  ratification  did  not  destroy  it. 

5.  The  State  is  the  judge  of  the  constitutionality  of  a  law  so  far  as  it 
appUes  to  the  State. 

6.  As  the  judge  of  the  infraction,  it  is  also  sole  judge  of  the  remedy 
as  to  character  and  extent. 

7.  The  general  government  cannot  enforce  its  construction  against 
the  State  any  more  than  the  State  can  enforce  its  construction 
against  the  nation. 

8.  The  phrase  "law  and  equity"  in  the  Constitution  does  not  extend 
to  the  Supreme  Court  sole  jurisdiction  in  cases  which  involve  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  State. 

9.  An  unrestrained  majority  is  no  less  despotic  than  the  real  despot, 
a  fact  provided  against  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  in  the  reser- 
vation of  powers  in  the  States. 


2i8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

10.  These  facts  are  not  constructive,  but  are  borne  out  by  the  history 
of  the  estabhshment  of  the  general  government,  and  supported  by  the 
Resolutions  of  1799. 

11.  State  interposition  against  the  execution  of  an  unconstitutional 
law  is  not  Secession. 

12.  Nullification  is  a  constitutional  remedy  against  such  law. 

Nullification  in  South  Carolina.  There  could  be  little  doubt 
what  effect  such  a  presentation  from  the  pen  of  Calhoun  would 
have  upon  his  admirers,  in  his  State  at  least.  South  Carolina 
was  aflame  with  his  doctrine.  However,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  not  aU  its  citizens  were  affected  by  it.  A  very 
strong  element  against  the  dangerous  dogma  was  led  by 
Petigru  and  Poinsett,  ably  seconded  by  ex-Governor  Man- 
ning, Judge  Smith  and  Colonel  Drayton.  The  test  in  the 
contest  in  the  State  came  on  the  question  of  calling  a  conven- 
tion to  take  action  in  line  with  the  suggestions  of  the  Nulli- 
fiers.  In  this  struggle  the  Calhoun  contingent  won,  and  upon 
the  19th  of  November,  1832,  the  famous  Nullification  con- 
vention met,  and  five  days  later  startled  the  country  by  the 
adoption  of  the  unfortunate  Nulhfication  Ordinance,  described 
elsewhere  in  this  volume.  Universal  concern  was  felt  at  what 
the  attitude  of  President  Jackson  would  be.  But  the  people 
were  reheved  on  the  loth  of  December  when  his  proclama- 
tion made  known  his  intention  to  enforce  the  laws. 

Attitude  of  Jackson.  Senator  Robert  Y.  Hayne  of  South 
CaroKna  resigned  his  post  in  the  Senate  to  become  governor 
of  his  State,  to  which  he  had  been  elected,  and  Calhoun  resigned 
the  vice-presidency  to  take  the  seat  in  the  Senate  vacated  by 
Hayne.  He  entered  this  chamber  which  was  destined  to  be  his 
chief  arena  for  the  next  twenty-eight  years  at  a  time  when  he 
was  regarded  by  no  small  number  of  persons  as  possessed  of 
treasonable  designs.  His  manner  in  taking  the  oath  to  sup- 
port the  Constitution  went  far  to  remove  suspicion.  In  less 
than  a  month  after  he  had  taken  his  seat  the  President's  mes- 
sage asking  for  the  means  to  enforce  the  laws  where  they  might 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      219 

be  resisted  was  read  in  the  Senate.  In  response  to  this  request, 
a  bill  for  the  enforcement  of  the  revenue  laws  was  reported. 
This  is  the  famous  Force  bill,  otherwise  known  as  the  "  Bloody 
biU." 

Calhoun  resolutions.  Calhoun,  on  whom  most  interest  was 
centered,  introduced  a  series  of  three  resolutions.  The  first 
declared  the  States  to  be  united  as  parties  to  a  constitutional 
compact,  to  which  the  people  of  each  State  acceded  as  a  separate 
and  sovereign  community.  The  Union,  of  which  the  compact 
is  the  bond,  is  a  union  between  the  States  ratifying  the  same. 

The  second  declared  the  government  to  be  one  of  delegated 
powers,  and  when  it  attempts  to  exercise  powers  not  delegated 
to  it  its  acts  are  unauthorized,  void  and  of  no  effect;  that  the 
general  government  is  not  the  final  judge  of  the  powers  dele- 
gated to  it;  that  each  (general  government  and  State)  has  an 
equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  both  as  to  the  infraction  and  the 
mode  of  redress. 

The  third  declared  that  recent  tendencies  had  been  to  exer- 
cise unconstitutional  authority,  to  the  subversion  of  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  States,  which  would  inevitably  destroy  the 
Federal  character  of  the  Union  and  create  in  its  stead  a  con- 
soKdated  government  without  constitutional  check.  This  must 
necessarily  terminate  in  the  loss  of  Uberty  itself.  The  resolu- 
tions were  tabled  and  the  Force  bill  came  up  for  adoption. 

Calhoun  against  Webster.  This  was  the  occasion  for  the 
great  debate  between  Calhoun  and  Webster.  Calhoun  had 
presided  in  the  Senate  during  the  spectacular  display  of  foren- 
sic eloquence  by  Webster  and-  Hayne  and  was  certainly  the 
ablest  judge  upon  the  issue  in  the  contest  save  Webster  him- 
self. He  well  knew  the  character  of  the  weapons  in  the  arsenal 
of  his  compeer.  He  was  aware  that  his  armor  was  all  but 
invulnerable  to  the  most  powerful  shafts  of  State  Sovereignty 
and  nullification.  He  waited  for  Webster  to  open  the  debate. 
Refusing  longer  to  delay,  on  the  15th  of  February  he 
addressed  the  Senate  and  completed  his  argument  on  the 


2  20  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

1 6th.  Up  to  this  time  his  efforts  had  been  confined  to  the 
pen.  Now  he  was  in  the  forum.  He  was  to  speak  upon  a 
cause  dear  to  him.  He  was  made  aware  that  the  Southern 
congressmen  were  not  in  harmony  with  his  radical  views. 
It  was  his  duty  to  convince  them.  In  the  career  of  this 
remarkable  man,  either  before  or  since,  he  never  reached  a 
higher  plane  than  on  this  occasion. 

Calhoun  restates  his  doctrines.  In  this  lengthy  exposition 
there  is  little  he  had  not  already  stated.  He  took  his  stand 
upon  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions  and  appealed  to 
the  theory  of  Jefferson  in  defense  of  his  contention.  He 
warned  the  country  against  an  attempt  to  use  force  to  execute 
unconstitutional  laws,  which  meant  that  the  legislation  upon 
the  tariff  was  unconstitutional  and  could  not  be  enforced.  He 
declared  that  no  matter  how  strong  the  Administration  was 
upon  the  side  of  power,  the  love  of  liberty  on  the  part  of  the 
people  of  his  State  was  stronger.  The  closing  sentence  of 
this  speech  has  been  quoted  against  him  in  proof  that  his 
position  was  the  result  of  disappointed  ambition:  "Nor  do  I 
repine  that  the  duty,  so  difficult  to  be  discharged,  of  defending 
the  reserved  powers  against  apparently  such  fearful  odds,  has 
been  assigned  to  us.  To  discharge  it  successfully  requires 
the  highest  qualities,  moral  and  intellectual;  and  should  we 
perform  it  with  a  zeal  and  abiHty  proportioned  to  its  magni- 
tude, instead  of  mere  planters,  our  section  will  become  dis- 
tinguished for  its  patriots  and  statesmen.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  we  prove  unworthy  of  the  trust  —  if  we  yield  to  the 
steady  encroachments  of  power  —  the  severest  calamity  and 
most  debasing  corruption  will  overspread  the  land." 

The  reply.  At  the  close  of  this  able  effort  Daniel  Webster 
arose  to  reply.  His  speech  was  not  the  rhetorical  performance 
that  his  reply  to  Hayne  was,  but  it  was  the  clearest  and  most 
powerful  exposition  that  the  government  is  one  whose  Consti- 
tution is  the  fundamental  law,  and  not  a  compact  between 
sovereign  States,  in  the  history  of  the  country.     Upon  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      221 

26th  of  February  Calhoun  replied  to  Webster,  but  he  added 
little  to  what  he  had  already  said.  The  partizans  of  the 
NulHtier  claim  him  the  victor,  but  such  is  not  the  verdict  of 
subsequent  time. 

The  Compromise  reached.  It  is  not  the  purpose  to  give  a 
history  of  nullification,  only  so  much  of  it  as  is  essential  to 
develop  the  poHtical  theory  of  its  greatest  defender.  It  is 
asserted  that  Calhoun  desisted  from  further  agitation  because 
the  gibbet  faced  him  with  Jackson  as  executioner.  The  facts 
do  not  warrant  this  statement.  Calhoun  was  too  well  informed 
in  executive  prerogative  to  be  alarmed  by  threats  of  that 
character.  On  the  contrary,  through  the  interposition  of  an 
element  led  by  Senator  Clay,  a  compromise  was  reached  which 
provided  for  the  gradual  reduction  of  the  tariff  to  a  revenue 
basis.     Ten  years  were  allotted  to  reach  this  basis. 

Calhoun  and  sectionalism.  It  is  charged  against  Calhoun 
with  some  show  of  reason  that  his  most  anxious  hope  was  to 
unite  the  South  in  an  effort  to  secure  certain  concessions.  He 
labored  to  accomplish  this  in  the  nullification  movement. 
On  his  failure  to  effect  it  by  this  measure,  he  took  up  the 
slavery  question  as  the  best  method  to  accomplish  it.  We 
think  this  is  an  unsound  judgment.  Any  attempt  to  explain 
his  attitude  other  than  in  the  light  of  his  political  theory  will 
end  in  error.  His  genius,  like  that  of  Jefferson,  was  aflame 
with  the  love  of  liberty.  And  while  his  philosophy  did  not 
spell  the  word  in  as  large  letters  as  Jefferson's,  it  did  apply 
it  to  secure  the  self-government  and  the  recognition  of 
the  sovereignty  of  the  States.  The  judgment  which  declares 
he  could  not  see  beyond  his  own  State  is  hardly  fair.  It  is 
true  that  his  references  were  to  his  own  State,  but  he  applied 
his  principle  to  all  the  States,  both  North  and  South. 

His  affiliation  in  1834.  With  this  in  view,  his  attitude  in 
opposing  President  Jackson's  policy  of  the  removal  of  the 
deposits,  and  various  other  measures,  until  he  found  himself 
in  alliance  with  Webster  and  Clay  against  the  Administration 


2  22  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

is  explicable.  He  declared  on  the  Senate  floor  in  1834  that 
he  belonged  to  no  party.  In  1839  he  again  asserted  that  he 
had  but  one  law  of  action,  and  that  was  his  duty;  and  that 
law  he  would  follow  if  it  compelled  him  to  travel  alone. 
When  he  refused  to  act  with  his  former  associates  and  was 
twitted  for  his  desertion  he  repUed,  "  I  belong  to  the  old  Repub- 
hcan  State  Rights  party  of  1798.  To  that,  and  that  alone,  I 
owe  fideHty,  and  by  that  I  shall  stand  through  every  change, 
and  in  spite  of  every  difficulty.  Its  creed  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Kentucky  Resolutions  and  the  Virginia  Resolutions  and  Report, 
and  its  policy  is  to  confine  the  action  of  this  government 
within  the  narrowest  Hmits  compatible  with  the  peace  and 
security  of  these  States,  and  the  objects  for  which  the  Union 
was  expressly  formed."  Whatever  might  be  said  of  his 
inconsistency,  no  one  will  charge  him  with  varying  his  political 
theory  from  1828  to  the  hour  of  his  death.  In  the  twenty- two 
years  of  agitation  he  strenuously  maintained  his  doctrine  of 
State  Sovereignty  and  hved  to  see  it  adopted  by  the  Southern 
States  as  a  means  of  protecting  the  "pecuhar  institution" 
identified  with  them  from  the  beginning.  His  passion  for 
local  self-government  led  him  to  defend  the  non-interference 
of  Congress  with  the  ''pecuHar  institution,"  not  for  the  sake 
of  the  institution  so  much  as  for  the  recognition  of  his  favorite 
dogma  of  State  Sovereignty  and  its  corollary,  nullification. 

This  view  confirmed.  This  position  is  confirmed  by  his 
report  on  that  part  of  the  President's  message  which  related 
to  the  adoption  of  efficient  measures  to  prevent  the  circulation 
of  incendiary  abohtion  petitions  through  the  mail,  February 
4,  1836.  The  President  had  urged  that  Congress  should  pass 
a  law  prohibiting  under  severe  penalty  the  transmission  of 
incendiary  publications  through  the  mail  intended  to  instigate 
the  slaves  to  insurrection.  Calhoun  wrote  the  report  of  the 
committee  to  which  the  matter  had  been  referred.  He 
declared  that  Congress  had  not  the  power  to  enact  such  a  law, 
that  it  would  be  a  violation  of  one  of  the  most  sacred  provi- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      223 

slons  of  the  Constitution  and  subversive  of  reserved  powers 
essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  domestic  institutions  of 
the  slave-holding  States,  and  with  them  their  peace  and 
security.  He  also  contended  that  whether  a  paper  was  incen- 
diary or  not  is  not  a  question  for  Congress,  but  for  th^  State. 
While  the  report  breathes  the  strongest  possible  attachment  to 
the  institution  of  slavery,  it  denies  to  Congress  the  power  to 
enact  laws  for  its  preservation,  on  the  ground  that  its  preserva- 
tion must  be  left  to  the  States. 

Influence  of  the  slave  question.  From  the  last  years  of 
Jackson's  administration  up  to  the  Civil  War  the  slavery 
question  overshadowed  all  others.  The  discussion  upon  it 
took  various  forms.  The  reception  of  abolition  petitions  was 
an  early  occasion  for  heated  addresses  in  Congress.  In 
December,  1837,  Calhoun  attempted  to  meet  and  arrest  the 
further  progress  of  this  commotion,  by  a  series  of  six  resolu- 
tions. The  first  three  comprehended  his  conception  of  the 
character  of  the  government.  The  last  three  were  devoted 
to  a  defense  of  the  "pecuHar  institution."  His  pubhshed 
speeches  show  his  activity  in  these  years.  He  made  no  less 
than  ten  speeches  in  1837  upon  various  questions  occupying 
the  attention  of  Congress,  such  as  the  separation  of  the  govern- 
ment from  the  banking  business,  the  Independent  Treasury 
bill,  the  army,  and  the  reduction  of  duties.  This  activity 
was  kept  up  with  little  interruption  until  he  entered  Tyler's 
Cabinet  to  secure  the  annexation  of  Texas.  His  last  years 
were  absorbed  with  the  security  of  the  institution  of  slavery. 
In  his  defense  of  it,  he  went  to  the  extent  of  declaring  the  rela- 
tion the  best  possible  for  both  races.  He  insisted  that  the 
slave  in  the  South  was  much  better  cared  for  than  the  laboring 
man  in  the  manufacturing  districts  of  England.  His  condition 
as  a  slave  in  a  Christian  country  was  much  to  be  preferred  to 
that  of  a  savage  in  Africa.  With  the  marvelous  progress 
of  abolition  sentiment  throughout  the  free  States,  Calhoun  kept 
pace  in  his  effort  to  unify  the  slave  States  in  their  opposition. 


2  24  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

The  Memphis  convention.  On  the  13th  day  of  November, 
1845,  he  presided  over  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the 
Southern  States,  held  in  Memphis.  His  address  was  a  lucid 
statement  of  the  situation  growing  out  of  the  slavery  agitation, 
and  thfe  remedy  he  proposed.  In  this  address  he  avoided  radi- 
cal measures,  that  he  might  not  defeat  the  purpose  of  a  union 
of  forces.  The  convention  adopted  an  address  which  closed 
with  an  appeal  to  stand  united  in  defense  of  the  hberty  and 
equality  of  the  States.  At  last  he  found  the  issue  which  served 
to  accomplish  his  long  sought  purpose  to  unify  the  people  of 
his  section  upon  his  theory  of  government.  He  well  knew 
that  the  action  of  the  co-slave  States  in  resisting  his  nullifica- 
tion idea,  had  defeated  it  beyond  hope  of  revival  as  an  abstract 
proposition.  Now  the  slavery  issue  had  become  so  dominant 
that  he  felt  sure  of  his  ground.  An  examination  of  his  public 
utterances  during  the  last  decade  of  his  life,  without  reference 
to  his  fundamental  theory  of  State  Sovereignty,  would  induce 
the  belief  that  the  slave  question  was  the  ruling  thought  of 
his  life.  A  deeper  investigation  will  show  that  this  institu- 
tion was  the  occasion  for  enforcing  upon  his  countrymen  a 
recognition  of  the  force  of  his  political  theory. 

His  last  written  work.  In  the  hours  of  the  country's  great- 
est excitement,  when  the  balance  of  power  was  passing  into 
the  control  of  the  free  States,  thereby  destroying  the  equilib- 
rium in  the  Senate  so  long  maintained  between  the  slave  and 
the  free  States,  during  which  time  the  terms  Secession  and 
disunion  were  frequently  heard,  Calhoun  put  in  permanent 
form  his  theories  of  government,  in  the  greatest  and  most 
far-reaching  treatise  his  brilliant  mind  produced.  It  was  his 
last  work  and  should  be  regarded  as  the  matured  judgment  of 
his  ripened  years.  This  treatise  is  arranged  under  two  heads: 
the  first,  "A  Disquisition  on  Government,"  and  the  second, 
"A  Discourse  on  the  Constitution  and  Government  of  the 
United  States."  The  first  was  copied  before  his  death,  but 
evidently  it  had  not  been  re-examined  by  him.     The  second 


1 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      225 

was  found  in  his  own  handwriting  upon  loose  sheets  of  paper. 
The  two  together  occupy  over  four  hundred  pages  of  his 
Works  and  are  the  source  in  which  is  to  be  found  the  best 
statement  of  his  poHtical  theory.  It  is  unnecessary  here  to 
analyze  it,  as  it  contains  nothing  that  had  not  been  noted  in 
the  various  documents  here  examined.  It  is,  however,  con- 
clusive that  his  ripest  thought  was  not  upon  slavery,  but  upon 
political  theory,  under  which,  when  once  recognized,  slavery 
would  be  secure. 

His  last  speech.  In  his  last  great  speech  in  the  Senate,  read 
by  his  friend  Senator  Mason  of  Virginia,  which  was  written 
upon  the  slave  issue,  he  still  professed  great  attachment  to  the 
Union.  He  did  not  endorse  Secession,  but  said  there  was  a 
conviction  in  the  South  that  they  were  left  to  the  alternative 
of  choosing  between  abolition  and  Secession,  and  he  warned 
against  further  continuing  the  agitation.  His  mistake  was 
in  believing  that  if  Congress  would  refuse  to  entertain  any 
measures  touching  the  sensitive  issue,  the  agitation  would 
cease;  and  therefore  if  the  Union  was  endangered  the  fault 
was  not  with  the  South,  but  with  the  government  which  per- 
mitted the  agitation  to  continue.  During  all  these  years  of 
agitation  his  effort  to  commit  the  Democratic  party  to  his 
extreme  views  was  futile.  At  the  very  threshold  he  was  met 
by  President  Jackson,  the  head  of  his  party,  as  well  as  the  head 
of  the  nation.  However,  by  1840,  he  saw  this  party  adopt 
a  platform  committed  against  a  protective  tariff,  internal 
improvements,  Federal  assumption  of  State  debts,  and  a 
declaration  that  the  government  had  no  constitutional 
authority  to  interfere  or  control  the  domestic  institution  of 
the  several  States.  These  resolutions  were  incorporated  in  the 
party's  platforms  of  1844  and  1848. 

Calhoun's  passion  for  local  self-government  led  him  to  the 
precipice  of  State  interposition  against  the  enforcement  of  an 
enactment  of  the  general  government,  only  one  step  removed 
from  the  abyss  of  disunion. 


CHAPTER  XI 

DANIEL  WEBSTER,  THE  EXPONENT  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL 

SUPREMACY 

Webster  as  a  Partizan.  Among  the  brilliant  names  that 
adorn  our  national  history  from  1820  to  1850,  that  of  Daniel 
Webster  has  particular  significance.  He  had  attracted  much 
attention  by  brilUant  addresses  upon  the  War  of  181 2  and  had 
come  into  great  favor  before  the  end  of  the  Virginia  dynasty 
which  closed  with  the  administration  of  Monroe  in '1825. 
His  debut  in  pubhc  hfe  was  as  a  radical  partizan  of  the  Fed- 
erahst  persuasion.  Although  extremely  national  in  his  theory, 
his  party  spirit  led  him  to  withhold  support  of  the  Administra- 
tion in  measures  of  far-reaching  nationahty.  When  later  the 
Virginia  dynasty  gave  way  to  the  second  Adams  administra- 
tion, which  continued  the  poUcy  of  nationality,  Webster,  who 
had  assisted  in  the  choice  of  Adams  over  Jackson,  vahantly 
supported  liis  chief  in  his  measures.  This  afforded  him 
opportunity  to  give  his  talents  full  range  with  no  violence  to 
his  poHtical  theory. 

Transitional  period.  This  is  the  period  in  which  history 
records  the  transition  of  statesmen;  when  Calhoun  was  trans- 
formed from  a  Protectionist  into  a  Free-trader,  and  Webster 
from  a  Free-trader  into  a  Protectionist.  This  apparent  incon- 
sistency has  a  rational  explanation  more  favorable  to  Webster 
than  to  Calhoun.  The  latter  admitted  that  he  had  favored 
the  protective  system  and  had  ridiculed  the  constitutional 
objections  in  18 16,  but  he  explains  that  he  did  it  in  the  enthu- 

226 


ORGAXIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES 


227 


siasm  of  youth  and  at  a  time  when  he  had  made  no  preparation. 
On  the  other  hand,  Webster's  opposition  to  the  protective 
system  in  18 16  was  not  put  upon  a  constitutional  basis,  but 
upon  expediency.  He  did  not  argue  that  the  system  could 
not,  but  that  it  should  not  be  adopted.  Then  later  when  it 
became  the  policy  of  the  government,  against  his  influence, 
and  many  industries  had  been  estabhshed  upon  the  protective 
schedule,  many  of  which  were  in  his  own  part  of  the  country,  he 
deferred  to  the  majority 
and  became  finally  a  great 
advocate  of  the  "Ameri- 
can system,"  second  only 
to  Clay.  This  change  did 
not  necessitate  a  change 
of  political  theory. 

Extent  of  change.  The 
change  of  conditions  ap- 
pertaining to  a  rapidly 
growing  nation  modified 
Webster's  \dews  of  the 
tariff  as  a  poHtical  meas- 
ure, but  did  not  modify 
his  interpretation  of   the 

Constitution.  However,  he  consistently  held  that  a  tariff 
for  the  sake  of  protection  only,  with  no  reference  to  revenue, 
was  not  warranted  by  the  Constitution.  In  this  respect 
he  did  not  go  to  the  extent  of  Hamilton's  theory,  which 
would  justify  the  tariff  upon  the  ground  of  the  general  welfare 
clause  of  the  Constitution.  While  Webster  stopped  short  of 
the  extreme  limit  of  Hamiltonian  interpretation,  Calhoun  went 
beyond  the  Jeffersonian  interpretation,  so  that  the  difference 
between  Webster  and  Calhoun  measured  about  the  same  as 
that  between  Hamilton  and  Jefferson.  If  it  can  be  asserted 
that  Calhoun  had  a  passion  for  local  self-government  which 
extended    to    State    Sovereignty,  it  can    also    be    said   that 


Daniel  Webster 


228  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Webster  had  a  passion  for  Union  equivalent  to  constitutional 
supremacy. 

Influence  of  New  England  upon  him.  The  mind  naturally 
seeks  the  causes  of  things.  It  is  interesting  to  ascertain  the 
reasons  for  specific  facts  when  they  stand  in  contrast.  Why 
did  Webster  embrace  the  broad  construction  theory?  The 
atmosphere  in  which  he  was  bred  was  surcharged  with  Federal- 
ism. In  the  early  days  most  of  the  respectability,  wealth  and 
talent  were  found  in  the  ranks  of  the  Federalists.  They  had 
taken  their  name  (which  is  a  misnomer,  they  should  have  been 
called  Nationalists)  from  their  valiant  attachment  to  the  new 
Constitution.  Ebenezer  Webster,  the  father  of  Daniel,  was  a 
Federalist  of  the  Federalists.  He  had  placed  into  the  hands  of 
his  son  at  the  early  age  of  eight  a  handkerchief  upon  which  was 
printed  in  full  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The 
devotion  of  the  New  England  home  to  an  early  introduction 
to  fundamental  "principles  may  explain  the  passionate  devotion 
of  this  son  for  the  instrument,  which  in  the  minds  of  many  a 
citizen  was  the  cure-all  of  the  numerous  evils  during  the  years 
immediately  following  the  War  for  Independence.  In  this 
home  religion  took  first  place,  patriotism  second.  The  Bible 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  boy  first,  then  the  Constitution. 

Source  of  his  theory.  While  in  college  his  mental  activity 
was  aroused  by  the  discussion  of  the  questions  of  the  day. 
This  period  of  hfe  was  spent  during  great  political  excitement. 
Born  at  the  close  of  the  war,  the  year  before  the  treaty  of 
Paris  was  signed,  his  minority  was  passed  in  a  time  of  great 
concern  for  the  welfare  of  the  new  government.  The  charac- 
ter of  his  mind  was  constructive,  rather  than  destructive.  Its 
tendency  was  positive,  not  negative.  This  talent,  assisted 
by  his  college  training,  eminently  fitted  him  for  the  advocate. 
The  New  England  town  meeting  furnished  him  the  arena 
for  the  exercise  of  his  talents.  Much  was  made  over  the 
youth  who  gave  promise.  In  that  section  of  the  country 
grave  discussions  upon  various  questions  were  the  order  of  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      229 

day.  The  pulpit  was  the  important  school,  and  the  preacher 
the  real  teacher.  Pubhc  occasions  where  the  great  man 
was  exhibited  were  numerous.  Upon  such  an  occasion  Web- 
ster was  introduced  to  his  countrymen.  From  an  early  age 
his  study  took  him  to  the  history  of  his  country.  All  his  pub- 
He  addresses  drew  from  this  source.  Soon  the  Constitution 
became  his  text;  the  Union,  his  theme;  the  great  men  of  his 
country,  his  inspiration.  Later,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  became  his  school,  with  John  Marshall  his 
teacher,  and  the  "  FederaHst  "  his  chief  text-book. 

Webster  in  the  Supreme  Court.  His  first  important  case 
in  the  Supreme  Court,  which  was  argued  soon  after  he  entered 
Congress  was  between  citizens  of  the  same  State  holding 
property  in  different  States,  and  involved  a  constitutional 
question  of  jurisdiction  of  the  court.  He  took  the  broad  con- 
struction view  and  ably  contended  that  the  Constitution 
extended  jurisdiction  of  the  court  to  citizens,  not  only  of  the 
original  States  to  the  compact,  but  to  the  citizens  of  all  the 
States  admitted  to  the  Union.  His  argument  in  this  case 
serves  as  a  key  to  his  interpretation  of  the  document  later 
in  Hfe. 

The  Dartmouth  College  case.  In  1818  he  achieved  wide 
fame  by  his  masterful  argument  in  the  Dartmouth  College 
case.  For  our  purpose  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  this 
case  grew  out  of  a  law  enacted  by  the  legislature  of  New 
Hampshire  which  changed  the  charter  of  Dartmouth  College 
without  consulting  the  trustees  under  the  charter.  The 
trustees  entered  court  in  behalf  of  the  charter  as  it  was  before 
the  modification.  The  issue  turned  upon  the  constitutionahty 
of  the  law  under  which  the  change  was  made.  The  court 
sustained  the  law.  From  the  highest  court  in  the  State  the 
case  was  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
Webster  appeared  for  the  trustees  to  argue  the  unconstitu- 
tionality of  the  law.  His  contention  was  that  a  charter  is  a 
contract,  and  creates  contractual  relations  from  which  obli- 


230  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

gations  arise;  that  the  law  of  the  State  changed  the  contract; 
it  transferred  the  government  of  the  institution  from  the 
trustees  provided  by  the  will,  to  the  executive  of  the  State 
and  thereby  changed  the  obhgation  which  rendered  it  uncon- 
stitutional. The  decision  pronounced  by  Marshall  was  in 
line  with  the  argument  of  Webster.  This  ruling  has  been 
regarded  as  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  history  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  Up  to  1901  it  had  been  cited  nine  hundred 
and  seventy  times. 

Story  on  Webster.  Judge  Story  has  left  the  most  graphic 
account  of  Webster's  part  in  it.  Among  other  things  the 
judge  said,  "Few  cases  are  better  known  to  the  pubhc;  few 
are  of  more  varied  and  genuine  application;  few  at  the  time 
attracted  more  intense  attention,  and  probably  few  will  retain 
so  long  as  law  continues  to  be  a  science,  a  more  permanent  and 
enduring  celebrity."  He  adds,  "  The  argument  was  decisive 
of  the  future  professional  reputation  of  Webster.  It  elevated 
him  at  once  to  first  rank,  and  to  the  foremost  competitors  in 
that  rank." 

Other  questions.  In  this  same  year  Webster  made  a 
famous  argument  in  the  McCulloch  versus  Maryland  case, 
before  mentioned  in  this  volume.  In  this  exposition  he  fore- 
shadowed his  argument  in  his  reply  to  Hayne  a  dozen  years 
later. 

In  1824  the  case  of  Gibbons  against  Ogden  was  argued  in 
the  Supreme  Court  by  Webster.  It  involved  the  interstate 
commerce  power  of  Congress.  It  grew  out  of  a  law  enacted 
by  the  State  of  New  York,  creating  a  monopoly  of  the  steam 
navigation  of  certain  rivers,  the  Hudson  being  among  them. 
The  question  before  the  Court  was  whether  the  law  was  con- 
stitutional in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Constitution  grants  to 
Congress  the  power  of  regulating  commerce  with  foreign 
nations  and  also  between  the  States.  Webster  contended  that 
a  monopoly  such  as  this  was  in  contravention  of  such  a  right 
in  Congress,   and  although  Congress  had  not  at  the  time 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      231 

legislated  upon  the  specific  point,  still  the  State  had  no  author- 
ity to  usurp  the  power  of  the  government.  The  decision  was 
handed  down  by  Marshall  and  followed  closely  the  reasoning 
of  Webster. 

In  1827  he  argued  the  case  of  Ogden  against  Saunders, 
which  involved  the  question  of  the  power  of  a  State  to  enact 
a  law  to  relieve  a  debtor  from  his  obhgation.  The  next  year 
he  argued  the  case  of  the  American  Insurance  Company  against 
Canter,  which  involved  the  power  of  Congress  over  a  Terri- 
tory. In  this  argument  he  contended  that  Congress  was  su- 
preme in  the  Territory  up  to  the  time  of  admission.  This  case 
was  far-reaching  because  of  the  troublesome  form  that  the 
slavery  agitation  was  soon  to  take.  It  is  also  the  decision 
upon  which  the  later  Insular  cases  (1898)  were  decided. 

His  preparation.  From  1815  to  1828  Mr.  Webster  had  been 
in  cases  which  involved  the  relation  of  the  States  to  the  gen- 
eral government,  in  all  of  which  he  had  taken  the  broad  con- 
struction view  of  the  Constitution,  and  had  been  a  close 
observer  of  the  opinions  of  the  great  chief  justice.  He  rephed 
to  Senator  Hayne.  He  was  producing  an  argument  which  had 
been  given  in  piecemeal  before  the  Supreme  Court  at  various 
times.  When  he  was  asked  how  long  he  had  been  preparing 
his  speech,  his  answer  that  he  had  been  twenty  years  in  prepa- 
ration was  literally  true. 

The  Foote  resolution.  It  was  on  the  29th  of  December, 
1829,  that  Senator  Foote  of  Connecticut  introduced  a  resolu- 
tion instituting  an  inquiry  upon  the  pubHc  lands,  to  ascertain 
the  amount  in  each  State,  to  determine  the  expediency  of 
discontinuing  further  sales,  and  the  abolition  of  certain  land 
offices.  It  was  considered  by.  members  of  the  Senate,  chief 
of  whom  was  Senator  Hayne  of  South  Carolina.  Just  after  he 
had  risen  to  speak,  Webster  came  into  the  Senate  chamber. 
He  Hstcned  with  marked  interest  to  the  speaker,  who  in  the 
course  of  the  address  censured  New  England  for  a  pohcy  of 
antagonism  against  the  West  and  South. 


232  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

Hayne  and  Webster  in  debate.  On  the  following  day 
Webster  replied  in  an  able  defense  of  his  section,  and  argued 
briefly  the  constitutional  phase  of  the  question.  This  reply 
called  out  the  best  in  his  antagonist,  who  set  forth  his 
theory  in  three  propositions:  that  the  Constitution  is  a  com- 
pact between  the  States;  that  a  compact  between  two  with 
authority  reserved  to  one  to  interpret  its  terms  would  be  a 
surrender  to  that  one  of  all  power  whatever;  therefore  the 
general  government  does  not  possess  the  authority  to  con- 
strue its  own  powers. 

Webster's  Reply  to  Hayne.  To  the  first  proposition 
Webster  raised  the  question,  How  the  United  States  as  a  nation 
would  be  a  party  to  the  compact  if  the  Constitution  was  a 
compact  between  the  States?  He  held  that  such  a  position 
would  make  the  government  a  creature  of  the  compact  and  at 
the  same  time  a  party  to  it.  In  rebuttal  he  held  that  the 
government  was  the  agent  of  the  people,  not  of  the  States, 
and  as  such  agent  it  was  subject  to  the  control  of  the  people. 
"  It  is,  sir,  the  people's  Constitution,  the  people's  government, 
made  for  the  people,  made  by  the  people,  and  answerable  to 
the  people.  The  people  of  the  United  States  have  declared 
this  Constitution  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land."  He 
admitted  that  the  States  were  sovereign  in  a  limited  degree, 
but  denied  that  the  government  could  be  restrained  in  the 
exercise  of  its  functions  by  them.  He  asserted,  "The  people 
brought  it  into  existence,  established  it,  and  have  hitherto 
supported  it,  for  the  very  purpose,  among  others,  of  imposing 
certain  salutary  restraints  on  State  Sovereignty."  He  em- 
phasized the  distinction  between  a  government  of  States  and 
a  government  of  the  people. 

The  people's  safety.  The  safety  of  the  people  was  amply 
provided  for  in  many  and  specific  ways: 

I.  By  interpreting  the  instrument  and  the  laws  made  in 
its  pursuance  from  the  plain  wording  employed  in  the  docu- 
ments. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES        233 

2.  By  providing  short  terms  of  office,  frequent  elections, 
and  quick  return  of  responsibility  to  the  people. 

3.  By  relying  upon  an  independent  Judiciary. 

4.  By  the  provision  for  the  amendment  of  the  Con- 
stitution. 

5.  By  never  leaving  the  interpretation  to  any  State  legisla- 
ture, much  less  permitting  any  interposition  by  a  State  that 
thought  itself  aggrieved. 

Webster  on  constitutional  law.  Mr.  Webster  agreed  with 
his  antagonist  that  no  State  was  bound  by  an  unconstitutional 
law,  but  differed  from  him  as  to  who  was  judge  of  its  consti- 
tutionahty.  He  held,  and  rightly,  too,  that  all  laws  were 
constitutional  until  declared  not  so  by  the  proper  tribunal. 
This  proper  tribunal  was  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  and  could  not  be  the  State  in  any  case. 

Estimate  of  his  reply.  The  effort,  measured  by  the  standard 
of  oratory,  is  the  high  water  mark  of  Webster.  While  he  did 
not  regard  it  his  greatest  popular  effort  (his  Plymouth  oration  is 
that),  pubHc  opinion  believes  he  never  reached  that  eminence 
before  or  since.  While  it  is  inferior  in  logical  arrangement 
to  many  of  his  speeches,  in  popular  influence  it  is  unsur- 
passed by  anything  ever  produced  in  our  history.  It  had  the 
effect  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution.  It  is  true  it  did 
not  silence  the  great  exponent  of  nullification,  for  Calhoun 
was  not  to  be  silenced  by  oratory;  yet  it  is  true  that  it  turned 
the  current  that  was  rapidly  approaching  State  Sovereignty 
away  from  that  channel  toward  national  supremacy.  How- 
ever popular  the  doctrines  of  South  Carohna  had  been,  they 
had  never  been  regarded  in  a  serious  light  by  the  whole  nation 
until  the  day  that  Webster  made  his  masterful  exposition  of 
the  Constitution.  The  patriotic  fervor  wrapped  up  in  the 
words,  the  sublime  sentiment  running  throughout  the  whole 
speech,  and  the  thrilling  peroration  adapted  the  speech  to  the 
youth  in  school  who  were  beginning  to  take  interest  in  matters 
of  public  concern.     Perhaps  few  speeches  in  the  language  were 


234  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

read  with  the  enthusiasm  that  portions  of  this  speech  were 
read  in  the  years  preceding  and  following  the  war. 

His  real  title.  From  this  time  forth  Webster's  best  talents 
were  devoted  to  the  cause  of  national  union.  Consensus  of 
opinion  conferred  upon  him  the  title  of  Defender  of  the  Con- 
stitution, of  which  title  he  was  proud.  Upon  his  return  to 
Washington  he  was  prepared  to  accept  the  gauge  of  battle 
thrown  down  by  the  Nullilicationists.  Senator  Hayne  had 
given  place  in  that  chamber  to  Calhoun,  the  head  and  front 
of  the  South  Carohna  theory,  and  his  entrance  was  evidence 
of  a  stormy  session. 

Webster  against  Calhoun.  These  two  men  were  destined 
to  come  into  conflict  before  long.  No  two  gladiators  were 
ever  better  prepared  for  the  ring.  The  occasion  was  the 
debate  upon  the  Force  bill.  Calhoun  opened  his  speech  on 
the  15th  day  of  February,  1832,  and  closed  it  the  following 
day.  He  covered  the  entire  field  in  a  masterly  presentation. 
The  effort  was  the  climax  upon  a  grave  issue  by  the  greatest 
exponent  of  one  side  of  the  issue.  As  soon  as  he  ended  Web- 
ster arose  to  reply.  This  speech  did  not  appeal  to  the  popular 
mind  as  did  the  reply  to  Hayne,  but  as  an  exposition  of  the 
Constitution  it  is  greatly  superior.  It  does  not  contain  the 
rounded  periods  nor  the  rhetorical  flourish,  nor  does  it  glow 
with  the  patriotic  .fervor  that  marked  the  previous  effort,  but 
its  logic  is  all  but  invincible,  its  argument  is  convincing,  and 
its  conclusions  cannot  be  escaped.  As  a  constitutional  exposi- 
tion it  is  at  once  comprehensive  and  brilliant. 

Comparative  strength.  The  character  of  this  reply  was  de- 
termined by  the  character  of  the  onset.  His  great  antagonist, 
unlike  the  brilUant  Hayne,  resorted  to  no  arts,  but  depended 
upon  the  force  of  cold  decisive  logic.  His  critic  charges 
him  with  a  degree  of  sophistry  purposely  designed  to  strengthen 
a  cause  naturally  weak.  This  criticism  involves  insincerity 
on  the  part  of  the  theorist  not  justified  in  fact.  The  appear- 
ance of  any  ground  for  the  charge  is  due  to  the  metaphysical 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      235 

quality  of  the  mind  of  the  great  Nullifier,  which  led  him  into  a 
realm  dangerously  bordering  upon  the  sophist.  This  appears, 
not  in  the  statement  of  his  propositions,  but  in  the  aro-ument 
of  them.  His  statements  were  free  from  all  ambiguity  and 
were  intelligible  to  the  high  and  the  low.  Their  arrangement 
was  in  that  sequence,  that  the  admission  of  one  compelled  the 
admission  of  the  others.  This  freedom  of  ambiguity  rendered 
a  sharp  issue  between  the  combatants.  It  permitted  the 
affirmation  on  the  one  side  and  a  direct  denial  on  the  other. 

Calhoun's  resolutions.  Calhoun  submitted  his  propositions 
as  follows: 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States  composing  these 
United  States  are  united  as  parties  to  a  constitutional  compact,  to  which 
the  people  of  each  State  acceded  as  a  separate  and  sovereign  community, 
each  binding  itself,  by  its  own  particular  ratification;  and  that  the  Union, 
of  which  the  said  compact  is  the  bond,  is  a  union  between  the  States  rati- 
fying the  same. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  States,  thus  united  by  a 
constitutional  compact,  in  forming  that  instrument,  in  creating  a  gen- 
eral government  to  carry  into  effect  the  object  for  which  it  was  formed, 
delegated  to  that  government  for  that  purpose  certain  definite  powers, 
to  be  exercised  jointly,  reserving  at  the  same  time,  each  State  to  itself, 
the  residuary  mass  of  powers  to  be  exercised  by  its  own  separate  govern- 
ment; and  whenever  the  general  government  assumes  the  exercise  of 
powers  not  delegated  by  this  compact,  its  acts  are  unauthorized,  void, 
and  of  no  effect;  and  the  said  government  is  not  made  the  final  judge  of 
the  powers  delegated  to  it,  since  that  would  make  its  discretion,  and  not 
the  Constitution,  tho  measure  of  its  powers;  but  that,  as  in  all  other  cases 
of  compact  among  sovereign  parties,  without  any  common  judge,  each 
has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  the  infraction  as  of  the 
mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

3.  Resolved,  That  the  assertions  that  the  people  of  these  United 
States  taken  collectively  as  individuals,  are  now,  or  ever  have  been 
united  on  the  principle  of  the  social  compact,  and,  as  such,  arc  now 
formed  into  one  nation  or  people;  or  that  they  have  ever  been  so  united 
in  any  one  stage  of  their  political  existence;  or  that  the  people  of  the  sev- 
eral States  comprising  the  Union  have  not,  as  members  thereof,  retained 
their  sovereignty;  or  that  the  allegiance  of  their  citizens  has  been  trans- 
ferred to  the  general  government  or  that  they  have  parted  with  the  right 


236  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

of  punishing  treason  through  their  respective  State  governments;  or  that 
they  have  not  the  right  of  judging,  in  the  last  resort,  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  powers  reserved,  and,  of  consequence  of  those  delegated,  are  not 
only  without  foundation  in  truth,  but  are  contrary  to  the  most  certain 
and  plain  historical  facts,  and  the  clearest  deductions  of  reason;  and 
that  all  exercise  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  general  government,  or  any 
of  its  departments,  deriving  authority  from  such  erroneous  assumptions, 
must  of  necessity  be  unconstitutional;  must  tend  directly  and  inevitably 
to  subvert  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  to  destroy  the  Federal  charac- 
ter of  the  Union,  and  to  rear  on  its  ruins  a  consolidated  government 
without  constitutional  check  or  limitation  and  which  must  necessarily 
terminate  in  the  loss  of  liberty  itself. 

Webster's  reply.  Webster's  propositions  in  answer  were 
as  follows: 

1.  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  a  league,  confed- 
eracy, or  compact  between  the  people  of  the  several  States  in  their  sov- 
ereign capacities;  but  a  government  proper,  founded  on  the  adoption  of 
the  people,  and  creating  direct  relations  between  itself  and  individuals. 

2.  That  no  State  authority  had  power  to  dissolve  these  relations; 
that  nothing  can  dissolve  them  but  revolution;  and  that  consequently 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  Secession  without  revolution. 

3.  That  there  is  a  supreme  law,  consisting  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  acts  of  Congress  passed  in  pursuance  of  it,  and 
treaties;  and  that,  in  cases  not  capable  of  assuming  the  character  of  a 
suit  in  law  or  equity.  Congress  must  judge  of,  and  finally  interpret  this 
supreme  law  so  often  as  it  has  occasion  to  pass  acts  of  legislation;  and 
in  cases  capable  of  assuming,  and  actually  assuming,  the  character  of  a 
suit,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is  the  final  interpreter. 

4.  That  an  attempt  by  a.  State  to  abrogate,  annul,  or  nuUify  an  act 
of  Congress,  or  to  arrest  its  operation  within  her  limits,  on  the  ground 
that,  in  her  opinion,  such  law  is  unconstitutional,  is  a  direct  usurpation 
on  the  just  powers  of  the  general  government,  and  on  the  equal  rights 
of  other  States;  a  plain  violation  of  the  Constitution,  and  a  proceeding 
essentially  revolutionary  in  its  character  and  tendency. 

Webster  and  Jackson.  Mr.  Webster's  position  was  not 
only  a  defense  of  the  Constitution,  but  it  was  a  heroic  defense 
of  President  Jackson's  policy  against  nuUification,  for  which 
the  President  was  duly  grateful,  and  for  which  ready,  acknowl- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      237 

edgment  was  made.  The  same  devotion  to  the  Constitution 
which  stimulated  this  effort,  compelled  him,  he  thought,  to 
oppose  the  Administration  upon  most  of  its  measures.  The 
removal  of  the  deposits  from  the  United  States  Bank  was 
regarded  by  him  as  an  unconstitutional  act.  Likewise  the 
theory  upon  which  the  President  vetoed  the  Bank  bill  was 
a  dangerous  interpretation.  The  President  asserted,  that 
"some  of  the  powers  and  privileges  possessed  by  the  existing 
bank  are  unauthorized  by  the  Constitution,  subversive  of  the 
rights  of  the  States,  and  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the 
people."  Mr.  Webster  rightly  declared  the  duty  of  the  Presi- 
dent to  be  to  enforce  the  law,  not  to  interpret  it.  That  func- 
tion belonged  to  the  Judiciary.  He  feared  unwarranted  power 
in  the  Executive  no  less  than  unwarranted  privilege  in  the 
States.  From  this  time  down  to  his  death  one  note  rang 
clear  —  the  preservation  of  the  Union  under  the  Constitution 
—  to  which  he  ever  reverted. 

Webster  on  slavery —  1820.  This  will  help  to  explain  his 
apparent  inconsistency  on  the  slave  issue.  He  had  consist- 
ently opposed  this  institution.  As  far  back  as  1820,  in  the 
address  at  Plymouth,  he  delivered  a  powerful  indictment 
against  the  system. 

In  1830-1836.  Ten  years  later  he  praised  the  Ordinance  of 
1787  for  excluding  slavery  from  the  Northwest.  He  regarded 
"domestic  slavery  as  one  of  the  greatest  evils,  both  moral  and 
political." 

On  Texas.  In  1845  he  opposed  the  annexation  of  Texas 
on  various  grounds,  one  of  which  was  the  advantage  the  State 
would  have  in  its  representation  if  slavery  were  permitted. 
He  held  the  State  should  either  drop  slavery  or  come  in  on 
an  equality  of  representation. 

Slavery  in  the  Territories.  In  1848  on  the  question  of 
erecting  a  territorial  government  for  Oregon  Webster  took  a 
leading  part.  He  contended  that  the  Fathers  did  not  intend 
that  slavery  should  extend  to  new  lands,  when  they  framed  the 


238  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Constitution.  Yet  five  slave  States  had  been  admitted  from 
territory  acquired  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  and 
not  a  single  one  had  come  in  from  the  North.  He  declared 
that  he  would  not  consent  to  the  extension  of  the  area  of 
slavery  upon  the  continent,  but  reasserted  his  judgment  that 
Congress  had  no  power  to  interfere  with  it  in  the  States  where 
it  then  existed. 

His  position  in  1850.  In  view  of  this  unfriendliness  to 
slavery,  what  rational  explanation  of  his  Seventh  of  March 
speech  can  be  made?  The  public  opinion  explains  it  upon  the 
ground  of  his  ambition  to  become  President  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  charged  that,  in  1850,  in  the  hope  of  winning 
votes  from  the  slave  States,  he  faced  about  on  the  slavery 
question. 

The  Seventh  of  March  speech.  An  examination  of  this 
speech  will  explain  much  of  the  feehng  of  resentment  in  his 
former  admirers.  In  the  first  place  he  attacked  the  Abolition- 
ists and  charged  them  with  unwise  and  wicked  agitation.  He 
declared  that  the  agitation  had  bound  the  limbs  of  the  slave 
the  tighter  and  had  increased  the  rigidity  of  law  against  him. 

He  then  enumerated  specific  grounds  upon  which  the  South 
had  a  right  to  complain: 

1.  The  North  resisted  the  execution  of  the  fugitive  clause. 
This  it  had  no  right  to  do,  since  it  was  a  law  of  the  whole  land 
and  was  justified  by  the  Constitution. 

2.  Many  States  had  adopted  resolutions  asking  Congress 
not  only  to  abohsh  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  but 
in  the  States.  He  declared  Congress  had  no  power  to  interfere 
with  that  institution  in  the  States. 

3.  The  violence  of  the  press  was  no  more  a  cause  for  South- 
ern, than  Northern,  complaint.  However,  it  was  a  source  of 
disturbance. 

Offensive  doctrine.  He  said  that  slavery  in  any  and  all  the 
States  was  exem.pt  from  interference  from  Congress.  This  was 
in  consonance  with  his  views  from  the  first.     The  Territories 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      239 

over  which  Congress  had  power  were  divided  into  two  sections ; 
those  in  the  Northern  section  which  came  from  the  Louisiana 
acquisition  and  the  Oregon  Territory,  and  those  in  the  South- 
ern wliich  came  from  the  Mexican  cessions.  The  Missouri 
Compromise  fixed  the  status  of  the  Northern  section,  and  the 
character  of  the  soil  fixed  that  of  the  Southern  section.  He 
contended  that  slavery  could  not  exist  in  the  country  of  the 
cactus  and  the  sage  bush,  and  he  would  not  consent  "to 
re-enact  the  laws  of  the  Almighty." 

Was  he  consistent  ?  His  position  of  opposition  to  the  North 
in  its  attempt  to  evade  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  which  was  as 
much  law  as  any  other  statute,  was  in  consonance  with  his 
entire  career.  His  position  upon  the  status  of  the  slave  in  the 
States  was  in  1850  what  it  had  always  been,  and  had  often 
been  publicly  expressed  and  known  to  all.  But  his  attitude 
upon  the  status  of  the  slave  in  the  Territory  is  open  to  criticism 
of  judgment,  at  least,  if  not  of  motive.  According  to  his  oft- 
repeated  argument,  Congress  could  do  with  the  Territories  as 
it  liked,  therefore  slavery  was  not  necessarily  excluded. 

To  those  who  held  the  abolition  of  slavery  paramount  to  the 
preservation  of  the  Union,  this  speech  reached  the  depths. 
But  to  those  who  believed,  as  Webster  did,  that  the  perpetuity 
of  the  American  government,  was  the  supreme  end,  it  touched 
the  heights. 

The  two  theories  distinguished.  Calhoun  held  the  Consti- 
tution a  compact  between  the  States;  Webster  regarded  it 
the  fundamental  law  of  the  people. 

2.  Calhoun  held  the  government  as  the  agent  of  the  States; 
Webster  held  it  the  agent  of  the  people. 

3.  Calhoun  regarded  the  Union  made  up  of  States  in  com- 
munities; Webster  regarded  it  a  union  of  the  people  of  the 
States. 

4.  Calhoun  made  the  State  the  judge  of  the  constitutionality 
of  a  law  as  it  applied  to  the  State;  Webster  made  the  Supreme 
Court  the  judge. 


240  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

5.  Calhoun  held  that  the  primary  fealty  of  the  citizen  was 
due  the  State;  Webster  held  it  was  due  the  nation. 

6.  Calhoun  declared  that  nullification  was  a  constitutional 
remedy;  Webster  declared  it  revolution. 

7.  Calhoun  held  the  States  sovereign  and  therefore  possessed 
of  the  right  of  State  veto;  Webster  held  the  Constitution,  the 
laws  made  in  pursuance  of  it,  and  the  treaties  to  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land. 

At  the  close  of  the  careers  of  these  representatives  of  two 
antagonistic  political  theories  so  long  in  conflict,  ominous 
signs  suggested  the  probability  that  the  contest  would  soon  be 
transferred  from  the  forum  to  the  field. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THIRD   PARTIES 

The  radical  against  the  conservative.  The  rational  differ- 
entiation of  political  parties  lies  in  the  constitution  of  the  mind. 
Whether  man  is  naturally  controversial  or  not,  he  ever  insists 
upon  the  recognition  of  his  rights.  In  political  affairs  he 
differs  most  frequently  from  his  fellow  upon  method,  rather 
than  matter.  The  conservative,  who  dislikes  agitation  for 
its  own  sake,  is  ever  present.  He  chooses  to  suffer  evils  rather 
than  risk  the  institutions  in  the  attempt  to  correct  them.  Not 
far  from  him  usually  stands  the  radical,  who  enjoys  agitation 
and  who  has  a  propensity  for  righting  wrongs  at  any  price. 
He  is  uncompromising  in  his  judgments,  specific  in  his  methods, 
and  insistent  upon  the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes  at 
whatever  cost.  He  dislikes  uniformity,  as  the  conservative 
fears  innovation.  The  radical  enjoys  change  while  the  con- 
servative would  let  well-enough  alone.  One  would  infer  from 
history  that  the  conservative  has  had  his  influence.  The 
Declaration  of  Independence  asserts  that,  "All  experience 
hath  shown  that  mankind  are  more  disposed  to  suffer  while 
evils  are  sufferable,  than  to  right  themselves  by  abolishing 
the  forms  to  which  they  are  accustomed."  In  a  system  of 
government  where  opinion  is  untrammcled,  these  two  charac- 
teristics are  the  rational  bases  upon  which  political  parties 
divide.  Where  there  are  two  controlling  parties,  one  of  them 
will  be  radical  and  the  other  conservative.  This  division  is 
not  consistent,  since  it  most  frequently  occurs  that  the  radical 

241 


242  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

to-day  may  become  the  conservative  to-morrow,  and  vice 
versa.  It  may  be  affirmed  with  a  degree  of  accuracy  that  the 
party  out  of  power  is  the  radical,  but  becomes  conservative 
when  placed  in  power. 

I  Third  parties.  Third  parties  are  the  expression  of  the  radi- 
cal opinions  of  men  who  are  dissatisfied  with  the  existing 
regime.  They  grow  out  of  impatience  over  the  indifference 
of  party  leaders  to  redress  evils.  They  arise  from  the  con- 
viction that  the  needed  reform  will  not  be  achieved  by  the  old 
parties. 

The  "Quids."  The  first  third  party  movement  was  that 
of  the  "Quids"  in  1805.  It  was  a  revulsion  from  the  old 
Republican  party,  led  by  John  Randolph  of  Virginia  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  administration  of  Jefferson  and  his  attempt  to 
dictate  his  successor.  The  Quids  nominated  for  President 
James  Monroe  upon  the  ground  that  the  Republicans  under 
the  leadership  of  Jefferson  and  Madison  had  abandoned  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  party  and  had  become  cen- 
tralized by  a  policy  of  national  encroachment  upon  the  rights 
of  the  States.  Because  of  the  indifference  of  Monroe  toward 
the  nomination  and  the  election  of  Madison,  the  quid  tertium 
agitation  scarcely  reached  the  dignity  of  a  third  party  move- 
ment. 

First  third  party.  The  first  real  third  party  movement  was 
that  of  anti-Masonry  in  1827.  The  real  grounds  for  this 
party's  action  were  opposition  to  secret  orders.  From  mere 
local  agitation  it  spread  to  the  nation.  Its  real  political  effect 
was  State  rather  than  national. 

In  New  York  the  movement  had  taken  hold  of  many  promi- 
nent men  of  the  churches  and  newspapers.  Of  two  hundred 
and  eleven  pubHcations,  thirty-two  were  openly  supporting  the 
Anti-Masons. 

In  Pennsylvania  it  found  fertile  soil.  The  reHgious  elements 
here,  Scotch-Irish,  Quakers,  German  Baptists,  Moravians  and 
other  sects,  were  quite  generally  in  opposition  to  the  Masons, 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      243 

and  joined  in  the  movement  against  them.  In  the  election 
in  1832  the  Anti-Masons  of  Pennsylvania  polled  88,000  votes 
to  9 1, 000  by  the  Democrats  and  elected  eight  members  to 
Congress,  and  eleven  members  two  years  later. 

In  Vermont.  In  this  State  it  boasted  a  newspaper.  Its 
influence  in  the  legislature  was  strong  enough  to  repeal  the 
charter  of  the  Grand  Lodge.  By  1831  the  Anti-Masons  con- 
trolled the  National  RepubHcan  nominations  and  elected  the 
governor.  The  electoral  vote  of  this  State  in  1832  was  cast 
for  the  Anti-Masonic  candidate. 

Other  States.  In  Massachusetts  the  Anti-Masons  cast 
2,000  more  votes  in  1831  than  were  cast  by  the  Democrats. 
In  1833  they  nominated  John  Quincy  Adams  for  governor; 
who  received  3,000  more  votes  than  the  Democratic  candidate. 
By  1835  the  party  was  overthrown  by  the  Whigs.  In  Ohio 
a  Hke  fate  awaited  it.  The  Anti-Masonic  party  is  rightfully 
regarded  as  an  episode  in  our  poHtical  history.  It  conducted 
one  national  campaign  and  caused  considerable  stir  in  some  of 
the  States.  It  continued  less  than  a  decade,  yet  it  gave  to  our 
history  one  institution,  the  delegate  convention  for  the  nomi- 
nation of  officers.  Its  first  and  only  convention  was  held  in 
1 83 1,  and  every  party  since  that  day  has  employed  that  sys- 
tem for  placing  before  the  people  its  candidates. 

Labor  party.  Between  the  years  1820  and  1840  much 
agitation  existed  in  labor  circles  throughout  the  country, 
especially  in  the  cities  of  New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Boston. 
In  1828  the  agitation  took  a  pohtical  coloring  and  a  working- 
man's  party  was  formed  which  nominated  candidates  for  city 
and  county  offices  in  New  York  and  other  parts  of  the  country. 
The  party  demanded  shorter  hours,  and  defined  a  day's  work 
from  sun  to  sun,  or  ten  hours.  It  also  declared  against  con- 
vict labor,  imprisonment  for  debt,  and  the  banking  institutions. 
It  pronounced  in  favor  of  the  mechanics'  lien,  and  a  tax  upon 
church  property.  The  Workingman's  ticket  the  first  year 
received  6,000  votes.     In  1830  it  held  a  State  convention  in 


244  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

New  York  in  which  thirteen  counties  were  represented.  The 
convention  recommended  the  nomination  of  State  oflEicers  but 
later  it  endorsed  the  Anti-Masonic  candidates. 

"  Locofocos."  —  In  1834-1835  the  Workingman's  party  was 
absorbed  by  what  was  then  known  as  the  Equal  Rights  party. 
This  organization  was  a  spUt  from  the  Democratic  party.  It 
named  candidates  for  State  ofhces  which  were  ratified  by 
Tammany  Hall.  It  gained  much  power  in  the  State  and 
attempted  to  control  the  general  assembly,  which  resulted  in  a 
double  organization  and  a  serious  disruption.  It  was  in  this 
conflict  that  the  old  line  leaders  extinguished  the  lights  in  the 
hall  when  the  Equal  Rights  party  lit  them  again  with  loco- 
foco  matches.  The  name  Locofocos  was  applied  to  them  there- 
after as  a  party.  In  1836  a  State  convention  was  held  which 
proclaimed  their  principles.  They  were  extremely  democratic, 
and  antagonistic  to  the  centralizing  tendencies  of  the  Jackson 
administration.  To  the  end  that  their  influence  might  check 
those  tendencies,  they  made  a  coalition  with  the  Whigs,  which 
soon  ended.  Owing  to  Van  Buren's  position  upon  the  Bank 
issue  the  Workingman's  party  supported  Van  Buren  in  1836. 
This  coalition  was  a  natural  one  and  the  party  lost  its  identity 
in  the  absorption  by  the  party  from  which  it  sprang.  Its  only 
effect  upon  national  politics  was  to  call  back  the  New  York 
Democracy  to  its  fundamental  principle,  the  equal  rights  of  aU. 

American  party.  It  is  but  natural  that  about  1830,  the 
great  flood  of  immigration,  wliich  was  setting  in  from 
Catholic  countries,  should  arouse  some  alarm  among  the 
Protestant  elements  of  the  cities  where  the  major  portion  of 
the  immigrants  settled.  The  poverty  of  the  immigrant,  the 
low  state  of  living,  his  standard  of  morals,  and  his  great  num- 
bers, created  a  spirit  of  bitterness  toward  him.  It  took  on  a 
social,  rather  than  a  political  phase.  The  tendency  of  this 
portion  of  the  population  to  segregate  in  colonies  in  certain 
quarters  of  the  city  —  which  in  one  sense  was  looked  upon  with 
favor  by  the  residents  of  the  city,  but  in  another  was  regarded 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      245 

as  an  element  of  danger  —  made  them  the  object  of  distrust 
and  hatred.  In  colonies  they  could  be  and  were  handled  as 
a  unit  for  political  purposes  by  political  manipulators.  Oppo- 
sition became  so  strong  that  riots  resulted  in  many  places. 
It  was  charged  that  the  Catholic  element  refused  to  become 
assimilated  but  retained  allegiance  to  a  foreign  power,  the 
Pope.  In  Baltimore  this  agitation  was  largely  confined  to 
the  lower  strata  of  the  population. 

Its  principles  —  affiliations.  Soon  various  crusades  were 
started  against  the  CathoHcs.  Numerous  anti-popery  meet- 
ings were  held.  One  of  the  meetings,  held  in  1835  in  New  York, 
was  broken  up  by  Catholics.  This  stimulated  the  opposition 
to  the  extent  of  making  it  a  campaign  issue  and  a  ticket  was 
placed  in  the  field.  In  June,  1835,  the  party  organized  itself 
into  a  national  body,  taking  for  its  name  the  National  Demo- 
cratic Organization.     It  announced  its  principles  to  be 

1 .  America  for  Americans. 

2.  Anti-Catholicism. 

3.  Regulation  of  Immigration. 

The  school  question.  The  movement  failed  to  interest 
the  electorate  generally.  The  leaders  fused  with  the  Whigs, 
and  by  1837  the  movement  had  lost  its  identity  for  the  time. 
However,  it  was  revived  three  years  later  by  the  agitation  of 
the  Catholics  over  the  school  question.  The  system  of  gen- 
eral taxation  for  the  support  of  the  system  of  general  education, 
places  its  burdens  upon  all  ahke.  There  was  objection  to  the 
system  on  the  part  of  those  who  preferred  to  educate  their 
children  either  in  private  or  parochial  institution.  The 
question  came  before  the  State  of  New  York,  and  Governor 
Seward  called  attention  to  the  matter  in  his  message.  The 
matter  of  placing  the  Bible  in  the  schools  as  a  text-book 
was  a  delicate  question  which  Seward  refused  to  recommend 
but  he  agreed  to  a  division  of  the  school  funds,  the  control 
of  which  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Protestants.  It  was  regarded 
by  him  as  equitable  that  the  Catholics  should  have  apportioned 


246  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

to  them  their  share  of  the  funds.  This  pohcy  was  the  signal 
for  the  most  intense  excitement  and  the  most  bitter  class 
hatred.  In  1843  the  Catholics  succeeded  in  placing  upon  the 
Democratic  ticket  members  of  their  Church.  This  incident 
was  the  occasion  for  the  organization  of  a  new  party  under 
the  name  of  the  American  Repubhcan  party.  It  declared 
for  an  amendment  to  the  naturahzation  laws,  requiring  resi- 
dence of  twenty-one  years  for  naturalization;  for  a  repeal  of 
the  school  laws  and  against  all  foreigners  being  placed  in  office. 
Membership  in  any  other  party  was  declared  a  disquahiica- 
tion  for  holding  office  in  the  American  Republican  party.  In 
the  election,  it  cast  about  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  vote. 

Its  first  national  convention.  The  next  year  this  new  party 
succeeded  in  carrying  the  State  ticket,  and  secured  four  mem- 
bers in  the  national  House  of  Representatives.  By  this  time 
it  had  appeared  in  all  the  Northern  States  and  controlled  in 
each  a  considerable  following.  The  first  national  convention 
of  the  American  party  met  in  Philadelphia,  July  4,  1845. 
Fourteen  States  were  represented  by  one  hundred  and  forty- 
one  delegates.  Owing  to  the  convention  being  held  after 
the  presidential  election  of  1844,  it  decided  not  to  name  at  that 
time  a  candidate.  It  here  took  the  name  of  Native  American 
party.  Another  convention  was  held  in  May,  1847,  ^^t  Pitts- 
burg, but  adjourned  to  meet  in  Philadelphia  the  following 
September.  This  convention  recommended  Zachary  Taylor 
for  President  and  Henry  Dearborn  for  Vice-President.  At 
this  time  it  had  six  members  in  Congress,  four  from  New  York 
and  two  from  Philadelphia.  In  the  next  Congress  it  lost  all 
its  representatives,  save  one  from  Philadelphia.  While  it 
was  largely  an  anti-Democratic  movem_ent,  it  affihated  with 
that  party  in  places  where  it  was  in  the  minority.  Doubtless 
Clay's  defeat  in  1844  was  due  to  the  influence  of  this  party. 
In  the  next  campaign  it  favored  the  Whig  party  which  absorbed 
it.  Nothing  is  heard  of  the  party  again  until  the  Fremont 
campaign  in  1856.  •  - 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      247 

Whig  disintegration.  The  success  of  the  Whigs  in  1848,  and 
their  failure  to  satisfy  any  portion  of  the  people  upon  the  slavery 
issue,  encompassed  its  disastrous  defeat  in  1852,  foretelling 
its  speedy  disruption  as  a  party.  Its  candidate,  General 
Scott,  received  but  forty-two  electoral  votes,  against  two 
hundred  and  fifty-four  for  his  Democratic  opponent,  Franklin 
Pierce.  The  unmistakable  signs  of  dissolution  were  upon 
the  Whig  party  now  seeking  a  chance  for  escape. 

The  Know-nothing  movement.     In   1853   the  anti-foreign 
sentiment  organized  into  numerous  secret  orders  throughout 
many   States.     The '  sentiment  was   not   unlike   that  which 
created  the  agitation  in  1835,  and  in  1843-1847.    Its  principles 
were  identical  with  those  announced  in  1847,  but  with  addi- 
tional planks  in  its  platform  to  cover  the  Whig  position  upon  the 
slavery  question.     It  was  an  American  Protestant  movement 
against  the  Irish  Catholic  influence  in  poHtics.     The  places 
of  operation  were  in  the  great  centers  of  population.     From 
these  it  spread  rapidly  throughout  the  country  districts  until 
in  certain  localities  it  controlled  the  political  situation.     It 
intrenched  itself  in  power  in  many  States  and  won  to  its  ranks 
leaders  of  national  repute.     The  occasion  of  this  phenomenal 
growth   was   the   sad  plight   of   the   Whigs.     The   Free-soil 
movement  was   too   radical   to   suit   them;  they   could   not 
affihate  with  their  hfelong  enemy,  the  Democratic  party,  and 
the  Repubhcan  party  was  not  yet  born.     The  anti-foreign 
movement  offered  an  escape  for  them.    The  Southern  elements, 
which  were  driven  from  their  own  party  by  the  attitude  of  the 
Northern  Whigs,    found   an   easy   escape   to   the  American 
party.     The  Northern  element,  which  failed  to  win  upon  their 
policy  of  compromise,  also  found  an  easy  escape  through  the 
same  channel. 

Its  first  national  convention.  In  1856  the  first  national 
convention  of  this  new  movement  met  in  Philadelphia  with 
most  of  the  States  represented.  After  a  stormy  session  of  three 
days,  caused  by  the  attempt  to  frame  a  platform  so  as  to  win 


248  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

all  disgruntled  elements,  it  nominated  Millard  Fillmore  for 
President  and  A.  J.  Donelson  for  Vice-President.  These 
candidates  were  endorsed  by  the  Whig  convention  which  met 
the  following  September,  thus  fusing  the  two  parties.  In  the 
following  election  the  two  parties  together  polled  but  874,534 
votes  and  won  the  electoral  vote  of  but  one  State  —  Mary- 
land. Thus  after  a  phenomenal  success  in  many  State  elec- 
tions, the  national  effort  was  so  pitiably  weak  that  the  identity 
of  both  the  American  and  the  Whig  parties  was  lost.  In  the 
following  campaign  of  i860  the  scattered  remnants  were 
gathered  up,  and  an  attempt  was  made  to  organize  them  into 
what  was  known  as  the  Constitutional  Union  party.  This 
latter  party  drew  more  from  the  Democrats  than  any  of  its 
predecessors.  It  succeeded  in  obtaining  the  electoral  votes 
of  three  States  —  Virginia,  Tennessee  and  Kentucky  —  all 
Southern  States,  and,  upon  the  issue  in  i860.  Democratic. 

Rise  of  the  Liberty  party.  The  Liberty  Party  owes  its  rise 
largely  to  the  influence  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society 
which  was  organized  in  1833.  The  anti-slavery  movement 
appealed  to  specific  elements  in  our  national  life.  It  also 
enlisted  valuable  support  from  the  women  of  the  country.  In 
the  beginning  the  movement  had  no  political  meaning,  being 
confined  to  the  social  sphere.  Then  it  extended  to  the 
churches  and  took  on  a  religious  phase  and  later  it  took  up 
the  discussion  of  its  political  duty.  Three  questions  were 
discussed: 

1 .  Should  the  members  of  the  society  take  part  in  elections? 

2.  Should  women  participate,  and  to  what  extent? 

3.  Should  a  separate  party  be  formed? 

Form  of  the  agitation.  There  were  sharp  divisions  of  senti- 
ment upon  all  these  questions.  The  West  was  radical  and 
insisted  upon  pohtical  action.  By  1834  petitions  from  that 
section  came  pouring  into  Congress,  urging  action  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  The  agitation  reached  the  colleges  and 
seminaries.     The  Lane  Seminary  in  Cincinnati  attempted  to 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      249 

check  the  growth  of  the  agitation  and  enacted  repressive 
regulations,  which  caused  an  exodus  of  students  to  Oberlin 
College  which  was  well  known  for  its  anti-slavery  views. 
The  newspapers  were  a  splendid  field  for  operations  and  the 
editor  became  an  important  factor.  Garrison,  Lundy,  Birney 
and  Lovejoy  were  all  vahant  defenders  in  this  field  of  anti- 
slavery  agitation.  The  first  named  insisted  that  the  move- 
ment must  remain  outside  of  politics. 

Its  growth.  Garrison  marshaled  his  influence  to  keep  clear 
of  poHtics,  but  the  poUtical  faction  secured  control  and  the 
organization  of  the  Liberty  party  was  the  result.  James  G. 
Birney  was  its  first  candidate,  receiving  7,069  votes  in  the 
contest  in  1840.  From  that  date  the  party  grew  in  strength 
and  in  1844  the  same  candidate  received  62,300  votes.  By 
1848,  for  various  reasons,  it  had  dropped  the  name  of  Liberty, 
and  had  taken  that  of  Free-soil.  This  year  it  nominated  Van 
Buren  who  received  291,263  votes.  In  1852  its  vote  dropped 
down  to  155,825.  In  four  years  more  it  dropped  out 
altogether,  and  joined  with  all  other  parties  opposed  to  the 
extension  of  slavery  into  the  Territories,  in  the  formation  of  the 
Republican  party.  The  Repubhcan  party  nominated  John  C. 
Fremont  in  1856,  and  he  received  1,341,264  votes.  The  party 
carried  eleven  States  and  came  within  a  few  thousand  votes 
of  electing  the  President.  Four  years  later  it  carried  every 
Northern  State  in  the  Union,  electing  Abraham  Lincoln  Presi- 
dent. This  party  continued  in  control  of  the  government 
from  i860  to  1884,  when  it  was  superseded  by  the  Democratic 
party  for  four  years.  Then  from  1888  to  1892  it  again  held 
control,  when  it  was  again  superseded  by  the  Democratic 
party  for  four  years.  Then  in  1896  the  Republican  party 
again  took  control  and  has  held  it  continuously  up  to  the 
present  time  (1910). 

The  rise  of  the  Prohibition  party.  The  Prohibition  party 
held  its  first  national  convention  in  September,  1869.  It  was 
not  called  for  the  purpose  of  nominating  a  candidate  for  office, 


2  50  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

but  to  inaugurate  a  national  temperance  movement.  From 
the  time  when  two  hundred  farmers  in  Litchfield  county, 
Connecticut,  organized  a  temperance  society,  in  1789,  the 
question  of  the  use  of  intoxicating  Hquors  has  more  or  less 
agitated  the  people  of  the  country.  Between  1810  and  1840 
similar  organizations  were  formed.  The  first  pubHc  temper- 
ance society  in  this  country  was  organized  in  1826.  The 
total  abstinence  idea  was  not  incorporated  as  essential  to 
membership  in  it.  The  use  of  beverages  was  so  common 
among  all  classes  of  our  people  that  a  total  abstinence  pledge 
would  have  been  looked  upon  as  fanaticism.  However,  ten 
years  later,  a  national  convention  of  temperance  workers 
was  held  at  Saratoga,  New  York,  which  declared  for  total 
abstinence.  The  adherents  were  ridiculed  and  derisively 
nicknamed  "Teetotalers."  Four  years  later  the  Washington 
Society  was  started  by  a  half  dozen  men  pledging  themselves 
to  totally  abstain  from  the  use  of  intoxicants.  By  the  end 
of  the  year  at  least  one  thousand  such  men  marched  in  proces- 
sion celebrating  the  organization  of  their  society,  one  year 
old.  From  the  advanced  position  of  total  abstinence,  it  was 
but  a  step  to  the  prohibition  of  the  manufacture  and  sale  of 
intoxicants.  This  agitation  in  the  State  of  Maine  culminated 
in  185 1  in  the  enactment  of  a  law  prohibiting  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  intoxicating  Hquors  as  a  beverage.  This  was  the 
first  enactment  of  its  kind  in  the  country.  But  the  agitation 
grew  with  such  rapidity  that  within  five  years  similar  laws 
were  passed  in  Rhode  Island,  Massachusetts,  Vermont,  Michi- 
gan, Iowa  and  Connecticut.  In  most  of  the  cases  the  effect 
was  only  temporary. 

The  first  national  convention.  The  idea  of  prohibition 
gave  way  in  most  cases  to  that  of  regulation  of  the  traffic. 
This  was  accomplished  either  by  a  tax  levied  upon  the  business 
or  by  a  license  for  which  a  considerable  fee  was  charged.  The 
regulation  theory  was  based  upon  the  idea  that  by  increasing, 
the  burdens  of  the  business  its  profits  would  be  lessened  and 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      251 

therefore  its  evils  would  be  reduced  in  proportion.  This  view 
was  offensive  to  the  temperance  reformer,  as  the  compromise 
with  slavery  was  offensive  to  the  AboUtionist.  In  1869 
the  first  national  convention  was  held  in  Chicago  when  the 
National  Prohibition  party  was  organized.  The  call  for  the 
convention  originated  with  the  Right  Worthy  Grand  Lodge 
of  Good  Templars,  in  its  session  at  Oswego,  New  York,  in  May, 
1869.  The  first  national  nominating  convention  of  the 
Prohibition  party  was  held  three  years  later,  in  Columbus, 
Ohio.  Nine  States  were  represented  by  194  delegates.  As 
is  the  custom  of  third  parties,  the  platform  adopted,  while  it 
was  a  distinctively  prohibition  pronouncement,  covered  various 
issues.  It  was  democratic  in  sentiment.  It  declared  in  favor 
of  suffrage  without  regard  to  sex,  a  sound  currency,  nominal 
charges  for  public  service,  regulation  of  railroad  and  telegraph 
rates,  and  for  wise  regulation  of  immigration.  It  pronounced 
against  monopoly,  class  legislation,  discrimination  between 
labor  and  capital,  and  corruption  in  public  Hfe.  It  nominated 
James  Black  of  Pennsylvania  for  President,  and  John  Russell 
of  Michigan  for  Vice-President.  The  party  polled  5,608  votes 
in  the  election. 

Its  progress  —  1869— 1884.  The  organization  was  contin- 
ued, and  four  years  later.  Green  Clay  Smith,  the  candidate 
for  President,  received  9,522  votes.  In  1876  an  unsuccessful 
effort  was  made  in  the  national  House  of  Representatives 
to  recommend  an  amendment  to  the  Federal  Constitution  to 
prohibit  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  intoxicants  after  the 
year  1900.  In  1880  the  eminent  temperance  apostle,  Neal 
Dow,  of  Maine,  was  chosen  at  the  Cleveland  convention  as  the 
standard-bearer  upon  a  platform  similar  to  that  of  1876. 
This  year  the  party  cast  10,305  votes.  In  1884  there  were  two 
conventions,  both  claiming  to  be  of  the  Prohibition  party. 
The  first  was  held  in  Chicago  in  June  under  the  name  of 
American  Prohi!)iti()n  National  Convention.  Its  platform 
was  a  patch  quilt.     The  first  three  resohitions  were  similar 


2  52  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

to  the  principles  of  the  old  American  party.  The  fourth  was 
a  brief  statement  of  its  prohibition  principle.  The  fifth  was  a 
demand  for  the  withdrawal  of  the  charters  of  all  secret  socie- 
ties, and  was  therefore  similar  to  the  old  Anti-Masonic  party. 
The  sixth,  eleventh,  and  fifteenth  were  sociaHstic  in  character. 
The  ninth  and  twelfth  were  Republican,  while  the  thirteenth 
and  fourteenth  were  Democratic,  in  sentiment.  The  conven- 
tion nominated  S.  C.  Pomeroy  of  Kansas  for  President.  Before 
the  campaign  was  fairly  opened  the  effort  to  secure  votes  was 
abandoned. 

From  1884  to  1900.  The  other  convention  was  held  at 
Pittsburg  in  July  under  the  name  of  the  Prohibition  Home 
Protection  party.  It  nominated  John  P.  St.  John  of  Kansas  for 
President,  and  William  Daniel  of  Maryland  for  Vice-President. 
The  platform  was  comprehensive  but  strictly  a  prohibition 
pronouncement.  It  denounced  both  the  old  parties  for  their 
position  upon  the  Hquor  question.  Its  attitude  in  this  respect 
won  votes  from  both  the  leading  parties,  and  especially  from 
the  Republican  party  in  New  York,  where  the  Mugwump 
element  was  operating.  The  result  of  the  election  showed  a 
poll  of  150,369.  Four  years  later,  1888,  the  party  nominated 
CKnton  B.  Fisk  of  New  Jersey  for  President,  and  John  A. 
Brooks  of  Missouri  for  Vice-President,  upon  a  platform  similar 
to  that  of  1884.  The  party  polled  249,586  votes,  a  handsome 
gain.  In  1892  the  candidate,  John  Bidwell,  received  255,841 
votes.  In  1896  the  party  divided  upon  the  money  question 
into  the  Narrow-gaugers,  and  the  Broad-gaugers.  The  for- 
mer desired  to  limit  its  fight  to  the  main  issue  for  which  the 
party  was  organized,  while  the  latter  insisted  upon  making  its 
fight  include  the  money  question  in  the  interest  of  the  free 
coinage  of  silver.  The  disruption  came  in  the  fight  for  the 
adoption  of  the  platform,  wliich  ended  in  a  victory  for  the 
Narrow-gaugers,  after  which  the  Broad-gaugers  withdrew. 
The  Narrow-gaugers  noiTiinated  Joshua  Levering  of  Mary- 
land for  President.     In  the  election  he  received  131,317  votes. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      253 

The  Broad-gaugers  met  the  following  day  and  nominated 
Charles  E.  Bentley  of  Nebraska  for  President  upon  a  free- 
coinage  platform.  He  received  13,968  votes.  This  disruption 
natural  to  all  third-party  movements  is  the  fate  which  awaits 
such  efforts.  It  is  the  result  of  rivalry  between  ambitious 
men  with  comparatively  small  following  who  strive  for  leader- 
ship with  but  httle  or  no  experience  in  the  management  of 
great  campaigns. 

Since  1900.  In  1900  its  candidate,  John  G.  Woolley 
received  208,791  votes,  a  gain  over  the  campaign  of  1896,  but 
47,000  votes  less  than  were  received  eight  years  before,  and 
40,000  less  than  twelve  years  before.  In  1904  its  candidate 
for  President,  Silas  C.  Swallow,  received  260,303  votes  and 
in  1908  the  party  cast  but  241,282.  It  thus  appears  that  the 
prohibition  movement  has  failed  thus  far  to  enhst  the  tem- 
perance element  of  the  country.  In  a  third  of  a  century  its 
growth  has  been  less  than  two  per  cent  of  the  vote  cast  for  all 
parties. 

Origin  of  the  Liberal  Republican  movement.  The  Liberal 
RepubHcan  agitation  cannot  be  properly  classed  as  a  third 
party  movement.  It  was  but  a  revulsion  of  certain  elements 
of  the  Republican  party  against  specific  tendencies  of  that 
party.  It  included  in  its  ranks  national  figures,  such  as  Horace 
Greeley,  Charles  Sumner,  Carl  Schurz,  etc.=,  and  was  backed  by 
the  New  York  Tribune,  Cincinnati  Commercial,  Springfield 
(Mass.)  Republican  and  other  newspapers  of  less  standing. 
With  the  death  of  Greeley  the  Liberal  Republican  faction 
ceased  to  exist.  It  was  but  a  spasm  of  poHtical  enthusiasm  of 
the  negative  character,  and  it  passed  away  as  quickly  as  it  came. 

The  nearest  approach  to  it  was  the  Gold  Democratic  move- 
ment in  1896,  a  revolt  from  the  Democratic  party's  tendency 
toward  populistic  principles  of  government.  It  was  never 
a  party,  only  a  faction.  Of  about  14,000,000  votes  it  cast  only 
134,645  and,  like  the  Liberal  Republican  faction,  its  members 
soon  found  their  places  in  one  or  the  other  leading  parties. 


2  54  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Rise  of  the  greenback  agitation.  There  are  always 
present  in  the  country  a  considerable  number  who  believe  in 
the  "soft  money"  theory,  to  whom  money  may  be  anything 
that  the  government  calls  money.  A  piece  of  paper  with  the 
government's  stamp  upon  it  is  money,  as  truly  as  the  gold 
or  silver  coins  with  the  government's  stamp.  The  utihty  of 
such  money  has  been  tested  in  times  of  emergency.  Its 
advocates  refer  to  these  periods  as  proof  of  their  contention. 
These  advocates  are  found  in  every  country  and  at  all  times. 

Soft  money  craze.  In  this  country,  as  in  others,  the  soft 
money  theory  is  uniformly  offered  as  the  remedy  for  industrial 
stagnation.  Whenever  business  is  disturbed  and  hard  times 
are  promised,  the  soft  money  advocate  is  on  hand  with  his 
stock  of  argument  to  prove  that  he  has  what  the  country  needs. 
His  position  invariably  appeals  to  the  debtor  class  and  wins 
its  support.  All  nations  have  at  one  time  or  other  passed 
through  this  stage. 

In  the  colonies.  In  this  country  that  stage  was  reached 
before  the  nation  was  born.  The  condition  of  the  individual 
colonies  prior  to  the  Revolutionary  War,  resulting  in  economic 
anarchy,  is  known  to  all  students  of  our  history.  This  period 
was  followed  by  the  era  of  Continental  currency,  when  it  took 
two  thousand  dollars  to  buy  a  pair  of  shoes  and  four  hundred 
dollars  to  purchase  a  pound  of  coffee.  The  worthlessness  of 
the  Continental  money  passed  into  the  current  phrase  "  It 
isn't  worth  a  continental."  After  years  of  national  discipline, 
induced  by  the  craze  for  expanding  the  circulation  —  which 
was  followed  by  the  inauguration  of  the  financial  schemes  of 
Hamilton,  one  feature  of  which  was  the  establishment^ of  a 
National  Bank  —  the  agitation  for  a  greater  circulation,  for 
the  limitation  of  the  National  Bank,  and  a  substitution  of  the 
State  Bank  in  its  stead,  returned. 

Paper  money  a  cure-all  remedy.  From  the  close  of  Jack- 
son's administration  to  the  Civil  War,  the  country  was  battling 
against  the  demand  for  State  Bank  currency.     The  contention 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES       255 

that  money  value  was  representative,  not  intrinsic,  induced  the 
issuance  of  unlimited  amounts  of  irredeemable  paper  notes  in 
the  form  of  bank  bills.  The  situation  was  the  soft  money- 
theory  approaching  its  legitimate  conclusions.  The  Civil 
War  found  the  nation  with  specie  in  hiding,  perhaps  the  most 
threatening  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  successful  prosecution 
of  the  war  specie.  Without  it,  the  government  was  left  to 
employ  again  soft  money.  It  resorted  to  the  United  States 
note,  popularly  known  as  the  "greenback,"  which  was  made 
redeemable  in  gold  on  demand  of  the  holder.  These  demand 
notes  were  limited  to  the  abihty  of  the  government  to  redeem 
them.  But  subsequent  issues  were  not  of  the  redeemable  class. 
The  later  issues  were  also  legal-tenders  in  the  payment  of  all 
debts,  pubhc  and  private,  except  duties  upon  imports  and 
interest  upon  the  pubhc  debt.  The  exceptions  were  wisely 
made,  since  the  "  greenback"  was  but  a  certificate  of  indebted- 
ness. To  accept  it  in  payment  of  duties  would  be  attempting 
to  pay  ourselves  with  certificates  of  our  own  debt. 

In  Civil  War  times.  The  immense  issuance  of  these  notes, 
during  the  Rebellion  which  was  taxing  the  maximum  energy  of 
the  nation  produced  a  depreciation  of  value  to  the  point  where 
it  commanded  but  thirty-seven  cents  on  the  dollar.  With  the 
close  of  the  war,  one  of  the  first  questions  to  claim  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Administration  w^as  the  redemption  of  this  note. 
In  other  words,  the  government  desired  either  to  withdraw  it 
entirely  from  circulation  or  else  place  it  upon  a  value  equal  to 
specie.  For  years  the  agitation  was  kept  up.  The  poHcy  of 
withdrawal  was  unpopular.  It  was  declared  that  it  would 
contract  the  circulation.  It  was  also  urged  that  it  was  an 
inexpensive  currency,  in  that  it  cost  the  government  no  inter- 
est. Then  the  agitation  for  the  resumption  of  specie  payment 
began;  to  stand  ready  to  give  specie  in  exchange  for  it,  dollar 
for  dollar.  It  v/as  argued  by  the  resumptionist  that  such  a 
policy  would  supply  the  confidence  in  the  government  then 
lacking,  and   if   the  "greenback"  were  the  popular   money 


256  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

claimed  for  it,  the  holder  would  value  it  equal  to  the  specie,  and 
would  retain  it.  The  opponents  of  resumption  argue  that  it 
was  for  the  purpose  of  the  contraction  of  the  currency  in  the 
interest  of  the  money-changers;  a  conspiracy  of  the  class 
against  the  mass. 

Resumption  of  specie  payment.     When  it  was  fairly  known 
that  resumption  was  soon  to  be  an  established  pohcy  of  the 
government,    fierce   indignation   was    manifested   in    certain 
quarters.     Naturally  enough  it  was  generally  confined  to  the 
party  out  of  power,  which  was  then  the  Democratic  party. 
This  party  had,  in  its  history,  famous  hard-money  leaders,  and 
still  possessed  a  predominant  element  against  the  soft-money 
craze.     However,  the  soft-money  element  undertook  to  com- 
mit the  party  to  its  creed,  but  in  vain.     The  first  step  toward 
a  partizan   organization   was   in  November,    1874,   when   a 
Greenback  convention  met  in  Indianapolis  and  adopted  a 
platform   of  principles.     It   resolved   against   the  policy  of 
resumption  of  specie  payments.     It  demanded  the  withdrawal 
of  all  State  and  National  Bank  currency,  and  the  substitu- 
tion for  it  of  a  national  paper  currency  issued  directly  by 
the  national  government  to  the  holder.     It  desired  to  Kmit 
the  payment  of  coin  to  the  liquidation  of  the  interest  upon  the 
public  debt.     The  convention  then  adjourned  to  continue  the 
agitation  of  the  question.     In  1876  its  first  and  only  nomina- 
ting convention  was  held  in  Indianapolis,  in  which  nineteen 
States  were   represented   by   two   hundred   and    thirty-nine 
delegates.     It  here  took  the  name  of  Independent  party.     It 
adopted  a  platform  of  five  resolutions,  embodying  Greenback 
ideas,  and  nominated  Peter  Cooper  for  President.     In  the 
election  he  received  81,737  votes,  mostly  from  the  West.  Indi- 
ana alone  gave  him  17,233  votes,  and  Iowa,  Illinois,  Michigan 
and  Kansas,  increased  this  to  53,523  votes. 

Labor  in  politics.  Co-existent  with  the  greenback  agitation, 
labor  reform  claimed  attention  in  many  States,  especially 
in  the  large  cities.     This  reform  was  not  unlike  the  agitation 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      257 

which  had  previously  given  rise  to  the  Workingman's  party  in 
New  York.  In  1870  the  Labor  party  placed  Wendell  Phillips 
before  the  people  of  Massachusetts  as  its  candidate  for  gover- 
nor. The  following  year  a  strenuous  effort  was  made  to 
commit  the  Republican  party  of  that  State  to  a  labor  issue. 
The  agitation  soon  assumed  a  national  phase.  In  1872  in  the 
city  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  the  first  national  convention  of  the 
Labor  Reformers  was  held.  Seventeen  States  were  repre- 
sented by  at  least  two  hundred  delegates.  It  set  forth  its 
principles  in  a  platform  of  sixteen  resolutions.  Its  resolu- 
tion upon  the  money  issue  coincided  with  the  views  of  the 
Greenback  party.  Upon  the  tariff  issue  it  coincided  with  the 
Democratic  party,  demanding  a  tariff  for  revenue  only.  It 
pronounced  against  contract  labor,  Chinese  immigration,  and 
monopolies.  It  declared  in  favor  of  an  eight-hour  law,  civil 
service  reform,  the  speedy  payment  of  the  public  debt,  govern- 
mental supervision  of  railroads  and  telegraphs,  and  a  general 
amnesty  to  the  Confederate  participants  upon  the  basis  of 
equality  of  rights  and  privileges  to  all.  The  names  of  some 
famous  men  were  before  the  convention  as  candidates  for  the 
presidency,  David  Davis  of  Illinois,  Wendell  Phillips  of  Massa- 
chusetts, George  W.  Julian  of  Indiana,  B.  Gratz  Brown  of 
Missouri,  Horace  Greeley  of  New  York,  J.  M.  Palmer  of  Illi- 
nois, and  others.  Upon  the  third  ballot  Judge  David  Davis 
was  nominated,  having  received  two  hundred  and  one  of  the 
two  hundred  and  eleven  votes  cast  in  the  convention.  Judge 
Da\is  formally  declined  the  nomination  four  months  later. 
The  party  then  placed  Charles  O'Connor  of  New  York  upon 
the  ticket.  He  was  nominated  also  by  the  straight-out- 
Democratic  party,  which  resented  the  endorsement  of  Greeley. 
O'Connor  polled  but  29,489  votes  in  the  election. 

Natural  alliance.  The  Greenback  and  Labor  party  leaders 
sought  an  alliance  and  a  national  convention  was  held  in 
Toledo,  Ohio,  on  the  22d  of  February,  1878.  The  platform 
adopted    completed    the    alliance   which   proved  popular   in 


258  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

certain  quarters.  It  won  fourteen  seats  in  Congress.  Two  years 
later,  the  national  nominating  convention  named  James  B. 
Weaver  as  the  candidate  of  the  party  for  President.  He  polled 
308,578  votes  which  did  not  represent  the  full  strength  of  the 
party.  Four  years  later  Benjamin  F.  Butler  received  but 
175,390  votes.  The  falling  off  was  due  to  the  decadence  of 
the  Greenback  element  on  account  of  the  success  of  the 
resumption  pohcy.  The  Labor  element  won  some  votes  in 
the  East,  while  the  West  reverted  to  the  old  parties. 

Spasmodic  movements.  In  1886  the  United  Labor  party 
was  organized  in  New  York.  It  made  a  phenomenal  cam- 
paign for  Henry  George  in  the  New  York  mayoralty  contest 
upon  a  platform  socialistic  in  character.  This  party  held  a 
convention  in  the  same  year  in  Syracuse,  New  York.  Upon 
the  socialistic  tendencies  a  division  arose,  and  the  convention 
was  disturbed  by  the  withdrawal  of  many  delegates  who  pro- 
ceeded to  organize  a  new  Labor  party  under  the  name  of  the 
Progressive  Labor  party.  The  following  year  at  Cincinnati, 
a  Union  Labor  party  was  organized  upon  the  principles  of  the 
Knights  of  Labor. 

Socialistic  tendencies.  In  1888,  in  the  same  city,  two  con- 
ventions were  held  simultaneously,  one  by  the  Union  Labor, 
and  the  other  by  the  United  Labor  party.  The  Union  Labor 
convention  represented  twenty  States  with  two  hundred  and 
twenty  delegates.  It  adopted  a  platform  covering  the  ques- 
tions of  land,  money,  labor,  pensions,  transportation,  and  in- 
come tax.  It  declared  against  monopoly,  trusts,  contract  labor 
and  Chinese  immigration;  also  in  favor  of  woman  suffrage 
and  elections  of  President  and  United  States  senators  by  direct 
vote  of  the  people.  It  nominated  for  President  A.  J.  Streator, 
who  received  146,935  votes.  Kansas  alone  cast  twenty-five 
per  cent  of  this  vote.  The  United  Labor  convention  took  a 
sociaHstic  position  and  nominated  Robert  H.  Cowdry  for 
President.  Only  150  votes  were  reported  for  him,  all  coming 
from  Illinois. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      259 

Rise  of  the  People's  Party.  In  1891,  in  Cincinnati,  there 
was  organized  the  People's  party,  composed  of  adherents  of 
the  principles  upon  which  were  built  the  Greenback  party,  the 
Union  Labor  party,  the  United  Labor  party,  and  the  Far- 
mers' Alliance.  This  new  organization  adopted  a  platform 
declaring  for  free  coinage  of  silver,  equal  taxation,  income  tax, 
a  revenue  tariff,  and  the  election  of  President,  Vice-President, 
and  United  States  senators  by  direct  vote  of  the  people.  Its 
first  national  convention  was  held  in  Omaha,  Nebraska,  in 
1892,  when  James  B.  Weaver  was  nominated  for  President,  and 
James  G.  Field  for  Vice-President.  The  campaign  which 
followed  created  much  enthusiasm  and  won  for  the  candidates 
1,040,886  votes.  The  party  carried  the  electoral  votes  of 
Colorado,  Nevada,  Idaho,  and  Kansas;  and  one  vote  in  each 
of  the  States,  North  Dakota  and  Oregon  —  in  all  twenty-two 
electoral  votes.  It  will  be  of  interest  to  the  student  of  politics 
to  observe  that  the  People's  party  is  the  only  third  party  to 
control  the  electoral  vote  of  any  State  since  the  Civil  War, 
and  that  in  one  election  only. 

"  Populism."  In  1896  this  party  now  popularly  known  as 
the  Populist  party,  endorsed  the  candidacy  of  William  J. 
Bryan  and  nominated  Thomas  Watson  for  Vice-President. 
This  ticket  won  222,583  votes  which  was  not  a  representation 
of  the  strength  of  the  party,  since  most  if  it  went  direct  to  the 
Democratic  candidates.  In  1900  the  Populist  party  fused 
with  the  Democratic  party.  In  1904,  it  nominated  Watson  as 
its  standard-bearer  and  conducted  its  campaign  independent 
of  the  Democratic  party.  It  cast  but  114,637  votes,  a  little 
more  than  enough  for  one-half  of  an  elector  for  President  and 
Vice-President. 

The  Socialist  in  politics.  The  Socialist  party  should  not  at 
present  be  confused  with  the  Socialist  Labor  party.  The 
latter  was  organized  in  1883  in  the  city  of  Balthiiore.  In  the 
beginning  it  was  purely  a  local  matter,  generally  confined  to 
the  city.     It  did  not  assume  a  political  phase  until  later.     The 


26o  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Progressive  Labor  party,  and  later  the  United  Labor  party, 
adopted  principles  similar  to  the  Socialist  Labor  party.  In 
1892  the  Socialist  Labor  convention  was  held  at  New  York. 
Its  representation  indicated  that  it  had  hardly  assumed  a 
national  significance.  It  nominated  Simon  Wing  of  New  York 
for  President,  and  Charles  H.  Matchett  of  Massachusetts  for 
Vice-President.  Its  platform  contained  the  usual  pronounce- 
ments of  Socialist  advocates :  the  abolition  of  the  presidency 
and  the  United  States  Senate,  and  the  substitution  of  an  Exec- 
utive Board.  Upon  this  platform  the  candidates  received 
21,532  votes.     New  York  cast  17,956  of  these. 

Its  partizan  activity.  On  the  4th  of  July,  1896,  the  second 
national  convention  of  this  party  was  held  in  New  York. 
Its  platform  was  similar  to  that  of  the  previous  convention. 
Charles  H.  Matchett  was  nominated  for  President  and  received 
36,373  votes,  17,667  of  which  came  from  New  York.  In  1900 
the  party's  candidates  received  39,944  votes,  in  1904  but 
33,453,  and  in  1908,  but  15,421. 

Woman's  rights  movement.  The  Woman's  rights  move- 
ment which  in  1884,  under  the  name  of  the  party  of  Equal 
rights,  nominated  Belva  Lockwood  for  President,  does  not 
deserve  the  rank  of  third  party.  The  lack  of  a  well-defined 
demand,  even  among  women,  has  thus  far  precluded  a  strong 
party  sentiment  for  woman  suffrage. 

Law  of  third  parties.  Of  the  less  than  a  dozen  third  parties 
which  have  existed  at  one  time  or  other  in  the  life  of  the  nation, 
not  one  lived  to  pass  from  the  stage  of  third  party  to  that  of 
first,  or  even  second,  in  national  affairs.  At  least  three  of 
them  reached  first  place  in  single  States  in  presidential  years. 
The  real  influence  of  these  movements  is  confined  to  State  elec- 
tions, while  in  national  matters  they  have  exerted  small  weight. 

Resume.  All  told,  the  electoral  vote  cast  by  what  is  known 
as  third  parties  is  as  follows: 

1832,  Anti-Masons  cast  8  votes  (Vermont)  out  of  286. 

1856,  the  American  cast  8  votes  (Maryland)  out  of  308. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      261 

i860,  the  same  party  under  the  name  of  Constitutional 
Union  party  cast  39  votes  (Virginia,  Tennessee  and  Kentucky) 
out  of  303. 

1892,  the  Populist  carried  22  votes  (Kansas,  Colorado, 
Nevada,  and  Idaho)  out  of  444  votes. 

It  will  thus  appear  that  the  Anti-Masons  cast  less  than  three 
per  cent  of  the  electoral  vote;  the  Americans  less  than  two 
per  cent  in  1856,  and  a  fraction  over  twelve  per  cent  in  i860; 
and  the  PopuKst  about  five  per  cent  in  1892. 

Abolition  party  no  exception.  It  would  appear  that  the  old 
Abolition  party  serves  as  an  exception  to  the  law  of  third 
party  movements.  It  is  looked  upon  as  having  passed  from 
the  stage  of  third  party  to  that  of  first.  This  is  not  historically 
true.  Starting  as  a  social  organization  it  passed  into  a  political 
society,  against  the  strenuous  efforts  of  its  greatest  leader, 
William  Lloyd  Garrison.  Its  candidate  reached  his  highest 
vote  in  1844  when  he  polled  62,300  votes  which  was  about 
two  and  one-half  per  cent  of  the  total.  When  the  Abohtion 
party  gave  way  to  the  Free-soil  party  which  reached  its  high 
water  mark  in  1848,  when  Martin  Van  Buren  received  291,- 
263  votes,  a  fraction  over  ten  per  cent  of  the  total.  By  the 
next  presidential  election  in  1852  the  Free-soil  party  had 
dropped  to  155,825  votes,  less  than  five  per  cent  of  the  total 
vote.  By  the  next  election  in  1856  the  Free-soil  party  was 
absorbed  by  the  Republican  party  which  carried  eleven  North- 
ern States  with  114  electoral  votes.  Its  popular  vote  was 
1,341,264,  which  was  thirty- three  per  cent  of  the  total  vote 
cast,  while  its  electoral  vote  was  a  fraction  over  thirty-eight 
per  cent. 

Republican  party  not  an  exception.  The  Republican  party 
was  never  a  third  party.  In  the  first  election  in  which  it  took 
part  it  reached  the  position  of  second  party,  and  in  the  next 
it  became  first  party.  Neither  the  old  Abolition  nor  the  Free- 
soil  party  can  be  identified  with  the  Republican  party.  While 
the  latter  took  a  position  upon  the  slavery  question,  it  refused 


262  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

to  endorse  the  radical  views  of  either  of  the  former  upon  that 
sensitive  question  until  war  was  precipitated,  and  then  not 
until  abolition  was  demanded  as  a  war  measure.  During  the 
first  two  years  of  Republican  administration,  Lincoln  had  little 
support  from  the  Free-soil  element  of  the  country. 

Real  value  of  the  third  party.  The  substantial  influence 
of  third  party  movements  is  not  found  in  their  prospect  of 
becoming  first  or  even  second  parties.  It  is  found  in  their 
ability  to  control  the  balance  of  power.  Until  such  move- 
ments can  reach  that  position  they  are  futile  as  political 
factors.  In  American  politics  the  party  system  makes  it  pos- 
sible for  a  small  number  to  control  this  balance.  It  is  due  to 
the  numerical  equality  of  the  leading  parties,  together  with  the 
electoral  system  employed  in  choosing  the  American  executive. 

Favorable  conditions.  The  close  vote  of  the  two  leading 
parties  for  the  past  half  century  has  been  a  subject  of  interest. 
Whether  from  design  or  mere  coincidence,  in  almost  every 
national  contest  a  very  small  vote  would  have  reversed  the 
verdict  of  the  people.  There  is  a  well  defined  conviction 
among  Americans  that  great  majorities  invite  corruption; 
that  narrow  margins  assist  in  clean  politics.  Whether  from 
such  conviction  or  not,  it  is  difficult  to  say,  yet  it  is  true  that 
in  elections  where  millions  engage  in  a  heated  contest,  the 
results  frequently  show  votes  so  close  that  but  a  few  thousands 
would  have  changed  the  result. 

Examples  of  narrow  margin.  In  1836  Van  Buren  received 
a  popular  majority  of  but  27,000  votes  of  a  total  of  one  and  a 
half  million,  and  an  electoral  plurahty  of  but  23.  A  change 
of  2,000  votes  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  would  have  given 
the  presidency  to  Harrison.  In  1844  Polk  fell  short  of  a 
majority  of  the  popular  vote  by  24,119.  His  plurality  over 
Clay  was  but  38,181.  His  plurality  of  the  electoral  vote  was 
65.  In  New  York  his  plurality  over  Clay  was  5,106.  Thus  a 
change  of  2,504  votes  would  have  given  the  State's  electoral 
vote  to  Clay,  who  would  have  been  elected  by  a  plurality  of 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      263 

seven  votes  in  the  electoral  college.  In  the  State  of  New  York 
alone,  the  Abohtionists  cast  15,812  votes.  These  were  prin- 
cipally from  the  Whig  party.  Hence  the  oft-repeated  charge 
that  Clay  owed  his  defeat  to  his  enemies  in  the  Abohtion 
camp,  who  resented  his  compromise  pohcy.  There  is  Httle 
doubt  that  his  defeat  was  encompassed  by  this  third  party 
movement.  In  this  manner  such  movements  can  be  effective. 
In  1848.  In  1848  General  Taylor  was  elected  by  an  electoral 
plurality  of  36  votes.  His  popular  plurahty  was  but  139,- 
555.  He  fell  short  of  a  popular  majority  by  75,855  votes. 
This  year  the  Free-soilers  cast  291,263  votes.  In  Pennsyl- 
vania alone  they  cast  11,263  votes.  This  State  gave  its  26 
electoral  votes  to  Taylor.  A  change  in  the  State  of  6,674 
votes  would  have  elected  Cass  over  Taylor  by  an  electoral 
plurahty  of  16  votes.  Here  the  Free-soilers  again  as  a  third 
party  held  the  balance  of  power. 

In  1856.  In  the  famous  Fremont  campaign  of  1856 
Buchanan  received  a  plurality  of  the  popular  vote  of  496,905, 
but  he  fell  short  of  a  majority  by  188,815  votes.  His  majority 
in  the  electoral  college  was  but  25  votes.  He  secured  the 
Pennsylvania  electors,  27  in  all,  by  a  majority  of  512  votes. 
His  plurahty  over  Fremont  in  this  State  was  83,200.  The 
third  party  cast  in  this  state  82,175  votes.  Had  Penn- 
sylvania gone  to  Fremont  or  Fillmore,  Buchanan  would 
have  lacked  two  electoral  votes  of  the  required  majority. 

In  i860.  In  the  election  which  resulted  in  the  choice  of 
Lincoln  in  i860,  Lincoln's  plurahty  was  491,295,  but  he  fell 
short  of  a  majority  by  473.645,  of  a  total  vote  of  4,680,193. 
Of  an  electoral  vote  of  303  he  received  180  which  was  a  major- 
ity of  28.  Here  again  is  an  interesting  fact  in  our  electoral 
system.  Lincoln  received  1,866,452  votes  which  gave  him 
180  electors  in  the  college.  Douglas  received  1,375,157  votes 
which  gave  him  but  12  electors  in  the  college.  Breckinridge 
received  847,953  votes,  a  little  more  than  half  of  the  Douglas 
vote,  but  this  gave  him  72  electors  in  the  college.     That  is,  a 


264  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

little  more  than  half  of  the  Douglas  popular  vote  gave  Breckin- 
ridge six  times  as  many  electors.  While  Bell  who  received 
nearly  200,000  votes  less  than  half  the  Douglas  vote  had  39 
electors  in  the  college,  or  over  three  times  that  of  Douglas. 

In  1884.  In  the  famous  Blaine-Cleveland  campaign  of  1884 
the  Prohibition  party  was  the  third  party  and  held  the  bal- 
ance of  power.  In  a  total  vote  of  over  10,000,000  Cleveland 
received  a  plurality  of  a  little  over  20,000,  but  fell  short  of  a 
majority  by  over  150,000.  He  was  elected  by  a  majority  in 
the  electoral  college  of  18  votes.  He  carried  the  State  of 
New  York  by  a  plurahty  of  1,149.  ^  change  in  this  State  of 
575  votes  from  Cleveland  to  Blaine,  would  have  elected  Blaine 
by  an  electoral  majority  of  17  votes.  In  this  State  the  Pro- 
hibition vote,  which  came  largely  from  the  Blaine  ranks,  was 
25,016;  hence  the  oft-repeated  charge  that  Blaine's  defeat 
was  due  to  the  activity  of  the  third  party  Prohibitionists. 

In  1888.  In  the  Harrison  election  of  1888  his  plurality  over 
Cleveland  was  but  100,476.  He  fell  short  of  majority  by 
147,982  votes.  His  majority  in  the  electoral  college  was  but 
32.  He  carried  New  York  by  a  plurality  of  13,002  votes.  A 
change  of  6,502  votes  from  him  to  Cleveland  would  have  given 
the  State's  36  electors  to  the  latter  which  would  have  elected 
him  to  the  presidency  by  an  electoral  majority  of  two  votes. 
The  Prohibition  party  cast  this  year  in  the  State  30,231  votes. 
This  fact  indicates  that  the  third  party  had  the  balance  of 
power  if  it  desired  to  use  it. 

Influence  upon  dominant  parties.  Balance  of  power  is 
the  lever  in  the  hand  of  the  third  party  leader  which  enables 
his  organization  to  become  effective.  When  it  has  reached 
the  point  where  it  can  hold  the  balance  of  power,  it  can 
make  its  demands  with  some  confidence.  To  these  demands 
the  parties  will  respond  as  soon  as  the  point  is  reached  where 
not  to  do  so  is  a  menace  to  success.  While  the  Anti-Masons 
grew  out  of  an  episode,  they  called  attention  to  secret  orders 
and  evidently  had  a  salutary  effect  upon  them.     This  party 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      265 

gave  to  the  American  system  the  national  delegate  convention, 
by  which  it  will  be  remembered  longest. 

Of  Abolition.  While  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Abolition 
party  was  erratic  in  many  ways,  and  left  by  itself  would  not 
have  accomplished  much,  it  must  also  be  conceded  that  it 
aroused  the  national  conscience  upon  the  evils  of  the  slavery 
system,  and  began  that  organization  of  opinion  which  ulti- 
mately ended  in  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves.  It  also  became 
famous  for  its  contention  for  the  right  of  free  speech  and  the 
right  of  petititon  for  the  redress  of  grievances.  It  also  opened 
the  door  of  pohtical  activity  to  the  women  of  the  country.  To 
the  agitation  of  the  old  Abolitionist,  much  of  the  recognition 
of  women  in  the  forum  is  due.  He  insisted  upon  equal  rights 
without  regard  to  sex. 

Other  parties.  To  the  old  American  party  is  due  the  coun- 
try's awakening  to  the  evils  of  indiscriminate  immigration. 
To  the  agitation  of  the  temperance  issue  by  the  Prohibition 
party  is  due  in  part  the  general  awakening  of  the  citizen  to  the 
dangers  of  the  American  saloon.  While  these  methods  do  not 
meet  with  general  approval  their  purposes  are  vindicated  by  a 
large  element  of  the  electorate.  To  the  various  third  party 
movements  which  have  emphasized  the  labor  question  is  due 
the  recognition  of  the  rights  of  labor  by  all  political  parties. 

Motives  of  leaders.  Third  party  movements  originate  from 
various  motives  on  the  part  of  leaders.  A  representative 
Democracy  is  the  most  fertile  field  for  leadership.  It  is  the 
normal  training  place  for  aspirants  for  place  and  power.  To 
render  effective  the  power  of  selection  a  political  machine  is 
built  up,  whose  ponderous  cogs  mangle  the  political  ambitions 
of  many  a  citizen.  Few  on  the  outside  of  the  machine  are 
satisfied  with  its  running.  Friction  on  the  inside  not  infre- 
quently causes  a  break.  General  dissatisfaction  of  the  outs 
induces  the  creation  of  a  third  party.  Thus  the  ambition  of 
leaders  who  from  various  reasons  are  shut  out  of  place  in  the 
old  parties  leads  to  the  organization  of  a  new  party. 


266  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

Recognition  of  younger  element.  Among  such  movements 
will  invariably  be  found  a  great  many  young  men.  The  feet 
of  the  old  poHticians  are  so  firmly  planted  that  little  attention 
is  paid  to  the  amateur.  He  must  not  only  win  his  spurs,  but 
he  must  do  it  frequently  amid  cries  of  derision  and  in  the  face 
of  a  storm  of  criticism.  Now  and  then  there  is  a  striking 
exception  to  this  general  rule.  This  occurs  when  either  by 
native  ability  or  the  combination  of  favorable  circumstances 
the  gates  of  preferment  open  to  the  younger  member  of  the 
party;  hence  the  adherence  of  so  many  young  men  to  third 
party  experiments. 

Discredited  leaders.  Another  source  of  such  movements  is 
found  in  discredited  leaders  in  the  old  line  parties.  It  is 
difiicult  to  estimate  what  part  of  the  leadership  of  the  new 
party  is  made  up  from  this  class.  Men  of  wide  experience  and 
practical  ability  who  have  been  supplanted  by  other  leaders 
seek  new  fields  for  the  application  of  their  talents.  Their 
former  standing  gives  them  preferment  in  the  new  party. 
This  is  not  only  because  of  the  experience,  but  also  because 
of  his  weight  as  the  representative  of  a  defection  in  the  party 
from  which  he  emanated. 

Reform  element.  Then  there  is  a  very  considerable  element 
in  all  these  movements  who  are  there  from  the  motive  of  disin- 
terestedness. Their  purpose  is  the  accomphshment  of  a  needed 
reform.  Party  is  little,  if  anything,  to  them  and  public  weal 
everything.  They  believe  in  party  as  a  means  of  inaugurating 
reforms,  but  will  not  jeopardize  country  for  party.  Their 
observations  of  the  policies  of  old  line  parties  convince  them 
of  the  futihty  of  any  expectation  of  reform  from  them. 

In  this  class,  will  be  found  a  vast  number  of  the  clergy  of 
the  country.  Especially  is  this  true  if  the  issue  has  a  moral 
phase. 

In  this  class  will  also  be  found  the  scholar  in  politics  whose 
mode  of  life  is  destined  to  elevate  him  to  see  things  as  they 
should  be,  rather  than  as  they  are.     His  methods  partake  of 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      267 

the  ideal  rather  than  of  the  real.  His  keen  discrimination 
reveals  the  defect  in  glaring  outline  and  he  leaps  at  the  remedy. 
He  subjects  himself  to  criticism  often  because  of  his  tendency 
to  regulate  conduct  by  a  code  of  rules. 

Rule  of  constitutional  interpretation.  All  third  parties 
invariably  take  the  loose  construction  view  of  the  Constitution. 
This  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that  every  party  is  seek- 
ing what  the  dominant  parties  have  not  given.  Most 
frequently  the  leading  parties  defend  their  refusal  upon  the 
basis  of  constitutionality.  This  necessitates  the  third  party's 
taking  the  loose  construction  view  that  such  legislation  is 
warranted  by  the  Constitution. 

Not  altogether  one  idea.  Every  third  party  also  aspires 
to  become  the  first  party  in  the  country.  Hence,  while  its 
platform  makes  one  issue  paramount,  it  invariably  extends 
to  all  issues  and  makes  its  pronouncement  upon  all  questions 
open  to  discussion  in  the  campaign.  The  wisdom  of  this 
practise  has  been  doubted  by  many  third  party  adherents.  It 
is  pointed  out  that  when  the  movement  becomes  a  competitor 
it  fails  to  win  the  support  that  it  enjoys  when  it  confines  its 
activity  to  the  enforcing  of  a  recognition  of  the  issue  for  which 
it  stands.  It  is  asserted  that  the  cause  suffers  when  confused 
with  others  of  little  significance.  Upon  the  proposition  that 
the  party  should  be  broad  gauge  rather  than  narrow  gauge, 
third  parties  have  divided  into  factions  and  their  identity 
has  been  lost. 

Their  effect.  As  to  the  real  substantial  value  of  third 
party  movements,  there  can  be  little  doubt.  They  serve  to 
stir  the  waters  to  prevent  stagnation.  They  operate  to  arouse 
public  sentiment  upon  questions  of  vital  importance.  To  them 
the  country  owes  the  suggestions  which  later  result  in  valuable 
reforms.  As  a  balancing  power  they  can  compel  recognition 
of  fjuestions  which  otherwise  would  never  reach  the  stage  of 
an  issue.  When  that  stage  is  once  reached  the  function  of  the 
third  party  is  fulfilled. 


268  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Method  of  operation.  The  method  employed  to  enforce 
such  recognition  often  compels  the  party  to  especially  antago- 
nize the  party  which  stands  nearest  to  it  in  sympathy.  In 
other  words,  the  strokes  are  most  effective  when  aimed  at  the 
vulnerable  places  in  the  pohtical  armor.  The  caustic  criticism 
which  follows  is  like  that  which  ensues  in  a  family  row.  The 
stage  is  soon  reached  when  the  party  which  furnished  most  of 
the  adherents  of  the  third  party  is  the  special  target  for  all  the 
sarcasm  of  the  third  party  leaders,  and  vice  versa.  Thus  the 
Abolition  party  came  to  hate  the  Whig  from  which  their 
adherents  largely  came.  So  likewise  the  Greenback  party 
came  into  severe  conflict  with  the  Democratic  party  from  which 
the  major  part  of  their  adherents  came.  The  same  is  noticed 
in  the  Prohibition  party  with  reference  to  its  attitude  toward 
the  Republican  party. 

Their  final  value.  There  is  little  to  fear  from  party  activity. 
The  danger  lies  in  party  atrophy.  The  body  politic  is  not  in 
danger  so  long  as  its  life  currents  are  open.  With  the  domi- 
nant parties  neck  and  neck  in  the  race,  a  third  party  has  an 
important  function  to  perform  and  so  long  will  it  be  kept  in 
commission.  With  the  disintegration  of  either  of  the  domi- 
nant parties,  the  third  party  must  become  either  the  second  or 
the  first  in  order  to  be  of  any  signilicance. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

SLAVERY  AS  A  FACTOR  IN  POLITICS 

Servitude  a  historical  fact.  The  introduction  of  slavery 
into  the  American  British  colonies  was  a  response  to  the  then 
prevailing  opinion  that  slavery  was  the  natural  order;  that 
the  distinction  between  the  master  and  the  slave  was  clear 
and  must  be  preserved;  that  there  must  ever  be  present  those 
who  are  worked  and  those  for  whom  the  work  is  performed. 
This  relation  had  existed  in  all  nations,  either  in  the  form  of 
slaverv  or  serfdom  or  both.  When  it  was  discovered  that  the 
African  could  be  prohtably  used  in  the  sugar  plantations  of  the 
West  Indies,  slavery  was  heralded  as  the  greatest  blessing  of 
the  race,  on  the  ground  that  the  necessary  condition  of  servi- 
tude would  thus  be  relieved  by  supplying  the  need  from  Africa, 
labor  which  had  received  the  curse  of  God.  (The  negro's 
color  was  evidence  of  the  curse,  so  they  reasoned.) 

Activity  of  England.  As  early  as  1585,  Queen  Elizabeth 
chartered  a  slave  company  for  that  purpose.  In  1618,  the 
year  before  slavery  was  introduced  into  Virginia,  James  I 
granted  a  second  charter.  In  1631  Charles  I  granted  another 
charter  and  in  1662  Charles  II  granted  still  another,  enabUng 
traders  to  secure  slaves  from  the  African  coast  to  sell  in  the 
various  colonies.  In  1672  the  Royal  African  Company  was 
chartered  and  given  a  monopoly  of  the  business.  In  17 13 
by  the  Assiento,  the  agreement  between  the  Queen  of  England 
and  the  forces  in  opposition  in  the  war  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession, the  Queen  obligated  her  government  to  supply  the 

269 


270  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Spanish  West  Indies  with  slaves.  The  treaty  expressly  de- 
clares the  obligation  to  be  "  to  bring  into  the  West  Indies  of 
America  belonging  to  his  CathoHc  Majesty,  in  the  space  of 
thirty  years,  one  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  negroes,  at 
the  rate  of  four  thousand  eight  hundred  in  each  of  the  said 
thirty  years."  On  four  thousand  of  them  a  duty  of  thirty- 
three  and  one-third  dollars  should  be  paid.  England  thus 
secured  a  monopoly  of  the  trade  which  was  destined  soon  to 
people  the  North  American  colonies  with  the  African  race. 
They  came  to  be  used  as  house  servants  and  field  hands. 
They  were  landed  in  all  the  colonies  but  especially  in  the  rice 
fields  of  the  South. 

Slave  population  in  1774.  The  following  figures  are  given 
as  representing  the  number  in  the  various  sections  of  the 
country  in  1774. 

Georgia 15,000 

South  Carolina 1 10,000 

North  Carohna 40,000 

Virginia 200,000 

Maryland 50,000 

Pennsylvania 2,000 

New  Jersey 4,600 

New  York 21 ,000 

Connecticut 6,500 

Rhode  Island 3, 800 

Massachusetts 5,200 

New  Hampshire 500 

Their  presence  in  the  South.  The  large  per  cent  of  the 
population  of  the  States  in  the  South  being  made  up  of  slaves 
rendered  their  presence  a  danger  and  misfortune  which 
most  of  the  people  keenly  appreciated.  The  institution  in 
most  of  the  States  was  merely  tolerated.  At  least  thirty-three 
attempts  by  a  single  State  to  cut  oft"  further  importation  were 
defeated  by  the  British  government  which  refused  to  interfere 
with  the  lucrative  trade.  In  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
Jefferson  indicted  the  King  of  England  for  his  part  in  main- 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      271 

taining  the  traffic.  This  clause  was  omitted  in  deference  to  the 
people  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia.  As  soon  as  the  various 
States  obtained  authority  they  acted  upon  the  subject. 
Patrick  Henry,  Thomas  Jefferson,  George  Washington  and 
George  Mason,  all  of  \'irginia,  were  especially  outspoken  in 
their  disapproval  of  the  perpetuation  of  slavery.  They  all 
expressed  the  hope  that  the  country  would  be  relieved  of  it 
in  due  time.  Individual  cases  of  this  opposition  were  sup- 
plemented by  anti-slavery  societies,  the  hrst  of  which  was 
organized  in  Philadelphia  by  Quakers. 

Action  of  the  States.  The  action  of  the  States  on  the  sub- 
ject was  as  follows : 

In  1774  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  provided  that  all 
slaves  thereafter  imported  into  the  States  shall  be  free;  in 
1784  the  trade  was  abohshed.  In  1776  Delaware  provided 
against  further  importation.  Two  years  later,  1778,  Virginia 
forbade  further  importation.  In  1780  Pennsylvania  followed, 
and  the  next  year  ]\Iassachusetts  did  likewise  and  was  followed 
by  Maryland  the  next  year.  In  1784  New  Hampshire  forbade 
it.  In  1786  North  Carolina  levied  a  duty  of  hve  pounds  on 
each  negro  imported.  This  law  was  repealed  in  1790,  and  in 
1794  further  importation  was  forbidden.  In  1788  South 
Carolina  forbade  the  importation  of  negroes  for  three  years, 
and  in  1792  forbade  it  altogether.  However,  in  1803,  on  the 
ground  that  the  importation  law  had  been  violated  and  that 
it  could  not  be  enforced,  the  trade  was  again  opened.  In 
1793  Georgia  forbade  the  importation  of  free  negroes,  and 
five  years  later  forbade  all  importation.  New  York  did 
not  take  action  against  this  traffic  until  1799  when  imjjor- 
tation  of  slaves  from  foreign  parts  was  forbidden.  This  action 
was  followed  by  New  Jersey  in  1804,  the  last  State  to  act. 
By  this  time,  as  will  be  remembered,  South  Carolina  had 
reopened    the   traffic. 

In    1787  —  compromises.     These    facts   indicate    that    at 
the    time   the   Federal   convention  was    in    session,   all    the 


2  72  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

States  but  five  had  taken  action  limiting  further  im- 
portation of  slaves.  Three  of  these  were  from  the  South. 
But  the  actual  presence  of  the  slave  was  recognized,  and 
certain  guaranties  were  entered  into.  Three  compromises 
in  the  convention  were  made  with  reference  to  slavery:  one  of 
them  was  the  return  to  the  owner  of  a  fugitive  slave,  another 
to  allow  the  slave  population  to  count  in  the  make-up  of  the 
State's  representation  in  Congress,  allowing  five  blacks  to 
equal  three  whites,  and  the  third  forbidding  the  government 
to  interfere  with  the  importation  of  slaves  for  twenty  years, 
except  to  levy  a  duty  not  over  ten  dollars  a  head.  These 
provisions  did  not  establish  an  endorsement  of  the  institution, 
but  simply  a  recognition  of  it.  The  same  Congress  that 
authorized  the  calling  of  the  Federal  convention,  while  the 
convention  was  in  session,  enacted  the  ordinance  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Northwest  Territory,  forbidding  for  all  time 
the  introduction  of  slavery  into  that  territory. 

Situation  in  the  Northern  section.  Most  of  the  States  in 
the  Northern  section  of  the  country  took  early  action  against 
the  continuance  of  slavery  within  their  borders.  But  in  most 
of  the  States  it  lingered  far  down  the  century.  The  first 
census,  in  1790,  shows  a  slave  population  exclusive  of  free 
blacks,  in  all  the  States,  of  697,897.  The  census  in  1800  gave 
a  slave  population  of  893,041.  In  that  year  all  the  States 
reported  slaves  except  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Ohio  and  Ver- 
mont. The  third  census,  1810,  gave  a  slave  population  of 
1,191,364,  in  which  all  the  States  reported  slaves  except 
Massachusetts,  Ohio  and  New  Hampshire.  In  1820,  1,536,- 
135  slaves  were  returned  from  all  the  States  except  those  just 
mentioned  and  Michigan. 

In  1830  there  were  2,009,043  slaves  reported.  Every 
State  reported  slaves  that  year  except  Vermont.  Massachu- 
setts reported  i,  Maine  2,  New  Hampshire  3,  Indiana  3, 
Ohio  6,  and  Michigan  32.  The  sixth  census,  1840,  reported 
2,487,455   slaves  in  which  every  State  reported  slaves  but 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      273 

\'ermont,  Massachusetts  and  Michigan.  The  next  census 
showed  the  slave  population  to  be  3,204,313.  No  slaves  were 
reported  from  the  following  states:  Cahfornia,  Connecticut, 
Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Michigan,  New 
Hampshire,  New  York,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island, 
Vermont  and  Wisconsin.  The  eighth  census,  in  i860,  gave 
3,953,760  slaves  in  all  the  States  then  holding  slaves,  which 
included  all  save  the  fifteen  before  mentioned  and  Minnesota 
and  Oregon.  It  is  observed  that  slaves  continued  to  be  held 
in  the  States  long  after  the  enactment  of  laws  forbidding  it. 
And  it  will  appear  that  slavery  was  permitted  in  the  States 
erected  from  the  territory  of  the  Northwest  in  spite  of  the 
Ordinance  of  1787. 

Increase  —  where,  when,  why?  The  great  increase  was 
in  the  Southwest,  in  the  cotton  States.  Alabama  reported  her 
first  slaves  in  1820,  when  she  gave  41,879.  By  1830  this 
number  had  increased  to  117,549  and  to  253,532  in  1840  and 
to  435,080  in  i860.  Mississippi  increased  her  slave  population 
from  17,088  in  1810  to  436,631  in  i860.  Other  new  States 
in  the  South  and  Southwest  increased  in  like  proportion.  This 
tremendous  growth  was  due  to  specific  conditions.  Prior  to 
the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  in  1792,  it  required  a  full  day's 
labor  of  a  slave  to  separate  one  pound  of  the  cotton  fiber  from 
the  seed,  but  the  cotton-gin  multiplied  the  effectiveness  of 
labor  to  such  an  extent  that  the  culture  of  cotton  became 
profitable.  The  sea  island  variety  of  cotton  which,  being  con- 
fined to  the  regions  along  the  coast,  and  thus  limited  in  its 
production,  was  augmented  about  this  time  by  the  discovery 
that  the  short  fiber  cotton  was  adapted  to  the  Up-country  soil. 
This  discovery  insured  the  culture  of  cotton  over  a  vast  area 
of  the  countrv. 

Figures  given.  The  increase  in  the  production  of  cotton  was 
astonishing.  In  1784  eight  bales  which  had  been  shipped  to 
Liverpool  were  seized  on  the  ground  that  so  much  cotton 
could  not  have  been  raised  in  America.     In  1789  the  product 


274 


POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 


was  about  1,000,000  pounds;  in  1790  nearly  2,000,000;  in 
1793)  5,000,000.  Three  years  later  it  reached  10,000,000 
pounds;  by  1800  it  amounted  to  60,000,000  pounds,  and  in- 
creased to  80,000,000  by  1806.  Henceforth  cotton  ruled  the 
industrial  South.  Tremendous  demands  were  laid  upon  the 
supply  of  labor,  and  especially  slave  labor.  In  the  year  1836, 
at  least  250,000  slaves  were  sent  into  the  Western  cotton 
fields.  Of  this  number  Virginia  alone  furnished  120,000.  In 
1798  the  price  of  a  field  hand  was  two  hundred  dollars. 
This  was  the  average  price  of  a  slave,  old  or  young.  In  181 5 
he  brought  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars.  In  1840  he  com- 
manded five  hundred  dollars.  By  i860  a  good  field  hand 
brought  as  much  as  one  thousand  four  hundred  dollars.  Just 
before  the  war  there  was  much  alarm  over  the  agitation  in 
certain  circles  in  reference  to  the  opening  of  the  foreign  slave 
trade  to  supply  the  great  demand  for  labor.  It  was  openly 
urged  in  places  in  the  South.  The  Southern  Commercial 
Convention  in  1855  recommended  its  reopening.  In  1859 
Alexander  H.  Stephens  favored  it.  In  the  same  year  the 
African  Labor  Supply  Association  was  formed.  During  this 
year  it  is  estimated  that  at  least  15,000  slaves  were  imported 
into  the  Gulf  States. 

Natural  conditions  that  favored  it.  It  was  the  confirmed 
behef  that  only  slaves  could  profitably  produce  cotton.  The 
labor  necessary  was  not  adapted  to  the  constitution  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon,  and  it  was  thought  the  negro  would  best  perform 
it  when  acting  in  slavery  under  an  overseer.  The  warm  cli- 
mate rendered  the  keeping  of  slaves  a  matter  of  small  expense. 
His  clothing  was  meager,  his  food  simple,  and  it  was  possible 
to  employ  him  all  the  year  —  all  of  which  it  was  thought  made 
him  a  much  less  expensive  laborer  than  the  white.  The  fact 
that  all  of  these  conditions  were  absent  from  the  North 
explains  why  slavery  took  such  hold  in  one  section  while 
it  decayed  by  slow  degrees  in  the  other.  Slave  labor  cannot 
successfully  compete  with  free  labor. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     275 

These  conditions  produced  several  distinguishing  features 
in  the  civiHzation  of  the  South.  The  presence  of  the  slave 
stratified  society  in  a  certain  degree,  and  rendered  labor 
undignified.  The  presence  of  the  slave  also  confined  the 
energies  of  the  South  for  many  years  to  one  activity.  It 
shut  out  manufacturing,  hence  until  recently  the  South  was 
compelled  to  send  its  raw  material  out  to  have  it  made  into 
the  finished  product. 

Source  of  opposition.  Opposition  to  slavery  emanated 
from  various  sources  and  motives.  In  the  South  it  had  been 
feared  that  the  slaves  might  arise  and  murder  the  masters  and 
their  families,  especially  where  the  black  outnumbered  the 
white  population.  Then  others  opposed  it  as  an  economic 
evil,  while  still  others  desired  its  abohtion  on  moral  and 
religious  grounds. 

Lundy.  In  181 5  Benjamin  Lundy  organized  an  anti- 
slavery  society  in  Virginia,  which  rapidly  increased  in  member- 
ship until  it  enrolled  hundreds.  He  operated  through  the 
printing  press.  His  method  was  persuasion,  and  compensa- 
tion by  the  State  if  forcible  emancipation  was  required.  For 
years  he  traveled  through  Maryland,  North  Carolina  and 
Virginia,  in  all  of  which  he  left  many  societies  devoted  to  the 
gradual  abolition  of  slavery. 

Quakers.  The  earliest  efTorts  to  ameliorate  the  condition 
of  the  slave  were  undertaken  by  the  Quakers.  They  began  to 
discipline  the  membership  on  the  subject.  To  countenance 
the  right  of  one  man  to  hold  property  in  another  was  thought 
wrong.  John  Woolman  traveled  far  and  used  his  great 
influence  to  unify  all  Friends  against  the  traffic. 

Other  religious  activity.  In  1784  the  Methodist  Confer- 
ence resolved  to  suspend  any  preacher  who  held  slaves  and 
in  1796  the  Church  disciplined  its  members  for  purchasing 
slaves.  In  1789  the  Baptists  of  Philadelphia,  approved  of 
the  Abolition  Society  and  recommended  the  co-operation  of 
the  churches.     In  1791  the  New  Hope  Church  was  the  first  dis- 


276  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

tinctive  church  opposition  to  slavery.  The  Baptist  Church 
being  strong  in  the  South,  it  became  an  effective  influence 
against  slavery.  The  I'resbyterian  church  took  a  non-com- 
mittal position.  However,  the  various  elements  in  opposition 
to  slavery  were  sufficient  to  call  attention  to  it. 

Appearance  in  Congress  of  petitions.  In  1790  two  petitions 
were  presented  to  Congress;  one  was  "  The  Address  of  the 
Quaker  Meeting  "  from  Northern  States  praying  for  the 
abolition  of  the  slave  trade,  the  other  a  memorial  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Abolition  Society  praying  for  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
This  petition  had  the  name  of  Benjamin  Frankhn  upon  it. 
These  memorials  were  referred  to  a  special  committee  which 
made  an  elaborate  report  outhning  the  hmitation  of  the 
authority  of  Congress  over  slavery.  It  pointed  out  the  con- 
stitutional inability  to  interfere  with  the  importation  of  slaves 
prior  to  the  year  1808.  It  also  declared  that  Congress  had  no 
authority  over  the  institution  within  the  States. 

Jefferson  on  colonization.  At  the  opening  of  the  century 
Jefferson  considered  the  proposition  of  colonizing  the  blacks 
by  themselves.  He  thought  the  Western  country  might  offer 
a  suitable  place.  He  also  favored  sending  them  to  Sierra 
Leone,  if  England  would  permit  it.  The  British  government 
refused  to  consent.  Later  the  Free  Republic  of  Liberia  on  the 
west  coast  of  Africa  was  estabhshed  for  the  home  of  free 
colored  people. 

Progress  of  anti-slavery  sentiment.  In  the  meantime 
individual  efforts  toward  the  amehoration  of  the  slave  leading 
to  gradual. emancipation  were  kept  up.  In  181 2-20  the  Eman- 
cipator was  published.  In  181 5  the  Tennessee  Manumission 
Society  was  formed.  In  182 1  Lundy  started  his  Genius  of 
Universal  Emancipation.  In  1827  the  African  Observer,  a  pub- 
lication designed  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  slave,  made 
its  appearance.  Four  years  later  Garrison  issued  the  first 
number  of  the  famous  Liberator  from  Boston.  Up  to  this  time 
much  of  the  activity  for  manumission  was  in  the  Southern 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     277 

States.  It  had  all  been  of  the  milder  sort.  But  with  the  ad- 
vent of  the  Garrison  movement  a  new  and  more  aggresive  spirit 
was  to  rule.  From  this  time  on  the  South  attempted  to  sup- 
press within  its  borders  all  sentiment  tending  to  emancipation. 

First  anti-slavery  convention.  In  1833,  in  the  City  of 
Philadelphia,  the  first  Anti-Slavery  convention  was  held.  It 
was  attended  by  sixty-two  delegates,  among  whom  were  Gar- 
rison, Tappan,  Whittier  and  Lucretia  Mott.  The  convention 
adopted  a  declaration  of  principles  and  declared  its  intention 
to  organize  an  anti-slavery  society  in  every  city,  town  and 
village  in  the  land,  to  send  its  agents  and  its  literature  broad- 
cast; to  enter  the  pulpit  and  persuade  the  Church  to  take  a 
stand  against  the  traffic.  They  also  resolved  to  discourage 
the  institution  by  discriminating  against  the  products  of  slave 
labor  in  favor  of  those  of  free  labor.  Thirty  years  later  Whit- 
tier wrote,  "  I  set  a  higher  value  on  my  name  appended  to  the 
Anti-Slavery  Declaration  of  1833  than  on  the  title  page  of  any 
book." 

Its  hold.  The  agitation  spread  throughout  the  Northern 
States  with  wonderful  rapidity.  In  Ohio  within  five  years 
over  three  hundred  local  societies  were  organized.  In  other 
States  similar  activity  was  aroused.  This  agitation  at  once 
reached  Congress.  It  came  in  the  form  of  petitions  praying 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  its  expulsion  from  the  District  of 
Columbia,  and  its  exclusion  from  the  various  Territories. 

The  Missouri  question.  The  first  great  fight  in  Congress 
came  up  in  connection  with  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a 
State  in  the  Union.  In  certain  quarters  of  the  North  the 
three-fifths  rule,  which  gave  the  slave  States  undue  advantage 
of  representation  in  the  Lower  House,  induced  the  effort  to 
exclude  slavery  from  the  State  as  a  condition  for  admission. 
The  rule  was  also  opposed  on  the  ground  that  it  would  estab- 
lish a  precedent  in  favor  of  all  the  remaining  States  to  be 
erected  from  the  Louisiana  Purchase  territory.  This  opposi- 
tion was  not  sentimental  but  political.     It  did  not  proceed 


278  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

from  dislike  of  the  institution  so  much  as  from  inequahty  of 
influence  in  the  national  legislature.  The  friends  of  Mis- 
souri succeeded  in  linking  its  admission  with  the  admission  of 
Maine,  and  took  a  firm  stand  that  if  the  former  were  kept  out 
of  the  Union  the  latter  should  also  be  denied  admission.  At 
last  a  compromise  was  reached  by  which  Missouri  was  admitted 
with  the  privilege  of  holding  slaves,  but  with  the  stipulation 
that  its  southern  boundary  should  be  the  dividing  hne  between 
slave  and  free  States.  North  of  the  hne,  slavery  was  for- 
bidden; south  of  the  line,  it  was  left  to  the  vote  of  the  people 
of  the  Territory  desiring  admission. 

Character  of  the  agitation.  By  the  time  the  agitation  for 
the  annexation  of  Texas  came  on,  the  ground  of  inequality, 
which  had  stimulated  the  contest  over  Missouri,  had  expanded 
until  it  had  included  much  of  the  sentimental  character.  The 
anti-slavery  movement,  which  invaded  Congress  in  the  form 
of  petitions,  had  given  to  the  agitation  an  entirely  new  mean- 
ing. The  earnestness  of  the  agitators  could  no  longer  be 
ignored,  nor  could  the  efforts  of  the  pro-slavery  element  be 
concealed.  It  became  a  common  occurrence  on  their  part  to 
defend  their  pecuHar  institution  in  the  forum,  on  the  stump 
and  in  the  press.  The  Hterature  of  the  day  brings  to  light 
many  able  defenses  from  the  best  brain  of  the  South.  Some 
of  these  took  a  religious  and  moral  tone.  It  was  frequently 
urged  that  slavery  was  of  divine  origin.  The  earnestness  of 
these  defenses  was  in  proportion  to  the  danger  which  threat- 
ened the  institution.  The  tendency  to  the  soHdification  of  the 
entire  North  against  the  further  spread  of  slavery  alarmed  the 
South. 

Natural  factors.  From  the  very  beginning  of  the  national 
government,  the  North  had  increased  in  population  more 
rapidly  than  the  Southern  section.  This  was  due  to  at  least 
two  causes:  (i)  immigration,  the  chief  element  of  growth, 
came  to  the  North  because  of  the  varied  industries,  and  (2) 
the  South  confined  its  energies  to  the  product  of  the  soil, 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      279 

while  the  North  engaged  in  various  occupations.  This  invited 
the  home  seekers  to  the  North  rather  than  to  the  South. 
Labor  in  the  South  being  slave,  placed  it  in  an  undignified  form 
and  stratified  society  in  such  a  degree  that  free  labor  refused 
to  enter  into  competition  with  slave  labor;  hence  the  falling 
oft'  of  the  South  in  the  race  of  population.  This  fact  gave  the 
free  States  control  of  the  national  House  of  Representatives. 

Senate,  the  arena  of  the  contest.  The  Senate  is  a  pohtical 
body,  in  that  it  depends  upon  the  will  of  Congress  for  its  num- 
bers. It  had  been  the  practise  of  the  government  from  the 
beginning  to  admit  States  in  pairs  of  free  and  slave.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  government  the  proportion  stood  as  follows: 

Contest  for  equilibrium.  Free  States,  or  those  which  were 
soon  to  be  such  —  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Connecti- 
cut, Rhode  Island,  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  New  Jersey 
—  7- 

Slave  States  —  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Caro- 
hna.  South  Carohna  and  Georgia  —  6. 

This  proportion  gave  the  free  States  fourteen  senators,  and 
the  slave  States  twelve.  In  1791  Vermont  increased  the  free 
States  to  eight,  and  Kentucky  (1792)  and  Tennessee  (1796) 
increased  the  slave  States  to  the  same  number,  which  gave 
an  equal  vote  to  the  two  sections  in  the  Senate.  This  equilib- 
rium was  maintained  as  follows. 

Free  States  Slave  States 

In  1796,  Eight.     Sixteen  senators  Eight.     Sixteen  senators. 

In  1803,  Ohio,  two  senators 

I"  181 2,  Louisiana,  two  senators. 

In  1816,  Indiana,  two  senators 

I^  181 7,  Mississippi,  two  senators. 

In  1 81 8,  Illinois,  two  senators 

^^  1819,  Alabama,  two  senators. 

In  1820,  Maine,  two  senators 

I"  1 82 1,  Missouri,  two  senators. 

In  1836,  Arkansas,  two  senators. 

In  1837,  Michigan,  two  senators. 


28o  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Texas.     Down  to  this  time  when  the  slavery  agitation  had 
become  quite  serious,  the  balance  in  the  Senate  was  kept  un- 
broken.    When  the  proposition  for  the  annexation  of  Texas 
came  up  the  Senate  contained  fifty-two  Senators,  twenty-six 
from  each  section.     The  Missouri  Compromise  had  guaranteed 
all  the  remaining  portion  of  the  territory  except  Florida  to  the 
tier  of  free  States.     By  the  census  of  1830  the  twelve  free 
States  had  a  population  of  7,000,000,  which  gave  them  twenty- 
four  senators  and  one  hundred  and  five  members  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  which  was  increased  by  1832  to  141  mem- 
bers.    The  twelve  slave  States  had  a  population  of  5,848,000, 
of  which  2,153,000  were  slaves.     This  gave  them  24  senators 
and  82  members  of  the  House,  which  number  increased  to  99 
in  1832.     In  1840  the  population  of  the  thirteen  free  States 
was  9,778,834,  to   7,290,619  for  the  slave  States,  of  which 
2,486,300  were  slaves.     This  disparity  of  population  of  the 
two  sections  in  favor  of  the  North  gave  the  slave  States  no 
hope  of  controlhng  the  national  House  of  Representatives. 
The  exhaustion  of  the  territory  from  which  States  could  be 
carved   and  admitted  as  slave  States,   with  vast  stretches 
lying  north  of  the  compromise  line,  insuring  the  admission  of 
several  free  States,  pointed  to  the  time  when  the  equihbrium 
in  the  Senate  would  be  destroyed  and  both  the  House  and  the 
Senate  lost  to  the  South. 

Calhoun's  motive.  This  situation  was  the  real  controlling 
motive  in  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  furnished  most  of  the 
opposition  to  the  measure  from  the  North.  When  the  meas- 
ure was  consummated,  the  expectation  was  to  create  four  new 
States  in  addition  to  Texas,  which  would  have  given  the  slave 
States  increased  influence  in  the  Senate.  By  the  admission 
of  Florida  and  Texas  in  1845  the  balance  in  the  Senate  was  in 
favor  of  the  South  by  a  majority  of  four.  But  the  rapid 
development  of  the  free  section  promised  soon  to  change 
the  result.  Iowa,  when  admitted,  reduced  the  majority  to 
two. 


28  I 


282  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Mexican  War  and  Wilmot  Proviso.  The  precipitation  of 
the  war  with  Mexico  was  regarded  by  many  as  in  the  interest 
of  the  extension  of  slavery.  To  thwart  such  a  result  the  Wil- 
mot Proviso  was  introduced.  It  provided,  "That  as  an  ex- 
press fundamental  condition  to  the  acquisition  of  any  territory 
from  the  republic  of  Mexico  by  the  United  States,  by  virtue 
of  any  treaty  which  may  be  negotiated  between  them,  and 
the  use  by  the  Executive  of  the  moneys  herein  appropriated, 
neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  shall  ever  exist  in 
any  part  of  said  territory,  except  for  crime,  whereof  the  party 
shall  first  be  duly  convicted."  This  measure  passed  the 
House  but  failed  to  become  a  law.  It  keenly  offended  the 
South  which  looked  upon  it  as  an  attempt  to  exclude  the  people 
of  the  Southern  States  from  territory  purchased  by  the  valor 
and  treasure  of  the  whole  country.  This  feeling  was  aug- 
mented by  the  wide  and  enthusiastic  support  the  measure 
received  throughout  the  entire  North. 

Discovery  of  gold  in  California.  The  discovery  of  gold  in 
the  newly  acquired  territory  was  occasion  for  a  flocd  of  emigra- 
tion to  that  section.  Cahfornia  was  admitted  as  a  free  State 
by  the  Compromise  of  1850,  the  measure  that  sought  to  adjust 
the  dispute  that  had  become  acute.  While  the  North  held 
that  the  South  had  gained  by  it,  the  fact  proves  that  the  equi- 
librium in  the  Senate  was  destroyed  in  favor  of  the  North,  an 
advantage  never  again  lost. 

Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  In  four  years  Senator  Douglas 
succeeded  in  enacting  into  law  his  scheme  of  "popular  sov- 
ereignty," a  measure  repealing  the  Compromise  of  1820,  and 
opening  the  vast  territory  north  of  the  Compromise  line  to 
the  introduction  of  slavery.  The  fugitive  slave  feature  in 
the  Compromise  of  1850  and  the  reopening  of  the  free  territory 
by  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  of  1854  did  more  to  arouse  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  than  all  the  efforts  of  all  the  Abohtionists 
in  all  the  preceding  years.  They  gave  an  opportunity  for  con- 
centrating opposition  to  slavery. 


ORGANIZATION  IN    THE  UNITED   STATES      283 

Effect  of  the  election  of  Lincoln.  Upon  the  election  of 
Lincoln  the  South  feared  that  the  last  hope  for  their 
pecuHar  institution  was  gone.  Both  branches  of  the  national 
legislature  were  hopelessly  lost.  The  return  of  the  escaping 
fugitive  was  openly  and  secretly  obstructed  in  many  quarters. 
The  protection  of  the  slave-holder  in  his  property  in  the  Terri- 
tories was  not  respected.  The  statesman  who  denied  the 
right  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  dictate  his  political  theory  had 
been  endorsed  by  his  election  to  the  presidency.  These  con- 
siderations induced  South  CaroHna  to  take  the  fatal  step  of 
Secession. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS,  THE  ADVOCATE  OF  "POPULAR 

SOVEREIGNTY  " 

Popular  sovereignty.  "  Popular  sovereignty,"  as  a  theory 
of  government,  should  not  be  confused  with  constitutional 
supremacy  on  the  one  hand,  nor  State  Sovereignty  on  the 
other.  Constitutional  supremacy,  as  a  theory,  derives  its 
force  from  the  sovereign  sanction  of  the  people  through  the 
Constitution.  State  Sovereignty,  as  a  theory,  derives  its 
force  from  the  reserved  rights  not  granted  away.  While 
popular  sovereignty  claims  its  force  from  the  inherent  and 
inahenable  right  to  govern  one's  self  so  long  as  it  does  not 
interfere  with  the  rights  of  others.  When  applied  to  the  Ter- 
ritories popular  sovereignty  meant  that  the  question  whether 
slavery  was  to  be  tolerated  there  or  not,  was  a  question  for  the 
people  of  the  Territory  and  them  only  to  determine  that 
Congress  had  no  authority  in  the  matter.  All  and  any  legisla- 
tion upon  that  point  by  Congress  was  unwarranted,  because 
it  ignored  the  fundamental  principle  of  local  self-government. 

Stephen  A.  Douglas.  The  greatest  exponent  of  this  theory 
was  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  A  native  of  Vermont,  he  became  a 
citizen  of  IlUnois  and  in  1834,  when  twenty-one  years  old,  was 
admitted  to  the  Bar.  Nine  years  later  he  entered  Congress 
as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  He  continued 
in  this  capacity  until  184.7  when  he  was  elected  to  the  Senate, 
which  position  he  held  up  to  his  death  in  1861.  Prior  to  his 
entering  Congress  he  had  held  the  position  of  attorney-general, 

284 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED    STATES      285 

member  of  the  legislature,  Secretary  of  State,  and  Judge  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Illinois.  His  was  a  dashing  nature,  an 
impetuous  personality  and  a  capable  mind.  He  added  to  an 
insatiable  ambition,  an  eloquent  tongue.  His  friends  were 
delighted  to  call  him  the  "little  Giant  of  the  West."  His 
public  life  in  the  service  of  the  national  government  covered 
the  period  immediately  preceding  the  Civil  War.  His  make-up 
rendered  him  capable  of  entering  into  the  stirring  scenes  with 
the  spirit  of  the  fighter.  He  was  an  ardent  Jeffersonian  in 
poHtics.  He  believed  in  the  largest  liberty  consistent  with 
good  government.  He  consistently  endorsed  the  principles 
of  Democracy,  believed  in  Jackson,  and  repudiated  Calhoun. 
At  the  time  of  the  latter's  death,  Douglas  was  the  recognized 
leader  of  the  party,  a  position  won  by  his  ability.  He  was 
alert  to  the  growing  disturbance  over  the  slavery  issue.  He 
coincided  with  the  great  mass  of  citizens  in  recognizing  its 
existence  in  the  nation,  but  beyond  its  power  to  interfere  with 
it  in  the  States.  He  had  no  sympathy  with  the  abolition 
movement,  regarding  it  as  a  wicked  disturbance  with  no 
promise  other  than  evil  to  the  nation. 

His  theory  of  politics.  By  nature  he  was  an  expansionist. 
He  believed  in  the  bigness  of  things.  He  frequently  referred 
to  the  government  when  it  should  extend  from  ocean  to  ocean. 
He  also  inclined  to  the  future  annexation  of  Canada,  and 
referred  to  the  time  when  Mexico  would  seek  admission,  which 
he  intimated  should  be  acted  upon  favorably.  It  was  but 
natural  that  such  a  nature  would  ardently  support  the  policy 
of  the  annexation  of  Texas;  and  when  it  became  a  part  of 
the  Union  and  war  with  Mexico  followed  as  a  consequence,  he 
gave  the  Administration  his  hearty  support  at  the  time  the 
country  was  holding  up  President  Polk  for  precipitating  the 
war. 

His  early  attitude  on  slavery.  He  looked  upon  the  Wilmot 
Proviso  as  a  blunder,  as  he  believed  the  status  of  the  slave 
could  be  left  to  the  people  interested.     This  was  before  the 


286  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

announcement  of  the  new  theory  of  non-interference  with 
slavery  in  the  Territories.  This  theory  was  promulgated  by 
Calhoun  in  1848  in  the  discussion  over  the  question  of  the 
organization  of  a  territorial  government  for  Oregon.  Here 
the  two  sections  of  the  country  came  into  direct  conflict. 
From  certain  quarters  came  a  demand  to  attach  the  prohibi- 
tion of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  to  the  Oregon  Territory;  while 
from  other  quarters  came  the  demand  to  extend  to  the  insti- 
tution of  slavery  the  protection  of  the  law.  At  this  juncture 
Douglas  introduced  a  measure  to  extend  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise Hne  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  The  Senate  passed  it  but 
afterward  rescinded  its  vote.  The  problem  sought  a  solution 
in  the  Compromise  of  1850.  There  was  a  well  defined  belief 
that  a  crisis  in  the  nation  was  pending  and  that  it  was  nar- 
rowly averted  by  this  Compromise.  In  this  conviction  the 
two  parties,  the  Democratic  and  the  Whig,  accepted  the  Com- 
promise as  the  solution  of  the  slavery  problem  and  pledged 
themselves  against  reopening  it. 

Kansas  and  Nebraska.  The  rapid  expansion  of  population 
into  that  part  of  the  country  now  occupied  by  the  States  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska,  called  for  action  looking  to  the  erec- 
tion of  new  States.  The  first  step  was  to  organize  the 
Territories  and  give  them  a  form  of  government.  By  this 
time  the  organization  of  any  Territory  was  the  occasion  for  a 
test  between  the  forces  for  free  territory  and  those  for  slave 
territory.  Senator  Douglas  came  forward  with  his  favorite 
scheme  to  permit  the  people  of  the  Territory  to  decide  the 
question  of  slavery.  His  bill  is  known  in  history  as  the  Kan- 
sas-Nebraska bill.  It  denied  to  Congress  the  power  to  inter- 
fere with  the  status  of  the  slave  in  the  Territory.  Its  legal 
effect  was  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  which  had 
fixed  the  question  of  slavery  north  of  the  line  36  degrees  30 
minutes.  Its  political  effect  was  a  storm  of  protest  from 
Northern  quarters.  From  Washington  an  "  Appeal  "  was 
sent  out  signed  by  Giddings,  Chase  and  Wade  of  Ohio,  and 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      287 

Sumner  of  ^Massachusetts,  calling  upon  the  people  ''  to  rally 
and  save  the  Union  from  disruption;  upon  the  churches  and 
all  Christians  to  interpose  in  the  interests  of  mankind;  and 
upon  all  who  could,  to  use  their  utmost  efforts  to  induce  their 
congressmen  to  rebuke  the  crime."  In  a  brief  time  the  entire 
free  States  were  ablaze  with  excitement. 

Non-committal  doctrine  of  Douglas.  Senator  Douglas 
eloquently  maintained  that  his  theory  would  neither  legislate 
slavery  in  nor  out  of  the  territories.  He  argued  that  it  pur- 
sued the  laws  of  reason  and  right.  It  was  right  to  give  to 
the  people  self-government,  and  the  status  of  slavery  would 
depend  upon  whether  they  wanted  it  or  not.  If  they  wanted 
it  they  would  have  it,  and  if  they  did  not  want  it  they  would 
not  have  it.  Its  existence  would  depend  upon  pubhc  opinion 
at  any  cost.  He  contended  that  the  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty  was  the  only  fair  application  of  self-government. 
This  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  furnished  the  principal  occasion 
for  the  organization  of  the  Repubhcan  party.  In  several 
States  fugitive  elements  floating  about  came  together.  Some 
of  them  called  themselves  Repubhcan,  but  most  of  them  took 
the  name  Anti-Nebraskaists.  In  Illinois,  conventions  were 
held  and  platforms  were  adopted  in  several  congressional 
districts.  These  platforms  demanded  the  restoration  of  the 
Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska  to  free  territory;  the 
repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  the  restriction  of  slavery  to 
the  States  where  it  then  existed;  the  refusal  to  admit  any  more 
slave  States;  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia; the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  all  territory  over  which 
Congress  has  exclusive  jurisdiction. 

Anti-Nebraska  sentiment.  These  became  the  issues  upon 
which  a  new  organization  worked.  In  1856  the  principles 
were  clarified,  a  platform  adopted  and  candidates  placed  in 
the  field.  The  issue  was  clearly  drawn  between  the  Demo- 
cratic party  and  the  newly  organized  Republican  party.  The 
former  repeated  its  determination  to  abide  by  the  settlement 


288  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

of  the  slavery  question  as  outlined  in  the  Compromise  of  1850 
and  the  popular  sovereignty  theory  of  1854,  while  on  the 
other  hand,  the  Repubhcan  party  declared  that  Congress  was 
sovereign  over  the  Territories,  and  it  was  its  right  and  duty  to 
prevent  therein  both  slavery  and  polygamy. 

Obliteration  of  party  lines.  The  overshadowing  influence 
of  the  slavery  question  went  far  toward  the  obhteration  of  old 
party  hues.  The  new  party  drew  into  its  ranks  elements 
from  all  parties.  The  old  Whig  party  was  soon  to  lose 
its  identity.  The  Democratic  party  divided  on  theory. 
Douglas  had  established  himself  as  the  leader,  but  not  of  the 
whole  Democracy.  The  mantle  of  Calhoun  fell  upon  the 
shoulders  of  Jefferson  Davis,  whose  brilhant  parts  and  proud 
constituency  fitted  him  to  bear  the  honor.  The  popular 
sovereignty  of  Douglas  did  not  satisfy  the  Southern  man's 
sense  of  either  theory  or  protection;  he  demanded  State 
Sovereignty. 

Lecompton  constitution.  This  confusion  of  theory  was 
reflected  in  the  episode  of  the  Lecompton  constitution.  This 
was  a  constitution  adopted  as  the  constitution  for  Kansas. 
It  forbade  the  legislature  of  the  State  to  prohibit  slavery.  It 
was  framed  by  a  convention  which  refused  to  allow  it  to  be 
submitted  to  the  people  of  Kansas  for  ratification.  This  was 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  theory  of  Douglas  who  offered  tell- 
ing opposition  to  the  admission  of  the  State  in  such  manner. 
This  divided  the  Northern  Democracy,  and  unified  the  South 
against  Douglas.  The  slave  States  insisted  that  slaves  were 
property,  and  being  such,  their  owners  claimed  protection  for 
them  in  the  Territories;  that  Congress  had  no  authority  to 
exclude  slavery  but  was  bound  to  extend  to  it  the  protection 
which  the  Constitution  guarantees  to  property. 

Slavery  before  Supreme  Court.  Upon  this  question  the 
Supreme  Court  pronounced,  in  1857,  in  the  famous  Dred 
Scott  decision.  Scott  had  been  held  a  slave  and  was  carried 
into  Illinois  from  a  slave  State,  and  later  into  that  part  of  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     289 

Louisiana  Territory  north  of  36  degrees  30  minutes,  in  which 
slavery  was  forbidden  by  the  Compromise  enactment  of  1820. 
Later  he  was  brought  into  Missouri.  He  instituted  a  suit  for 
his  freedom.  The  lower  State  Court  found  in  his  favor,  when 
the  decision  was  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State. 
Here  the  case  was  decided  against  him.  It  was  tried  later  in 
the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  appealed  to  the 
Supreme  Court.  In  the  latter,  two  questions  were  before 
the  Court:  (i)  Can  a  negro  of  African  descent  whose  ances- 
tors were  slaves  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States?  and  (2) 
Was  Scott  a  slave  at  the  time  he  brought  the  case? 

Dred  Scott  decision.  Four  judges  of  the  court  decided 
that  the  lower  court  had  not  jurisdiction  and  therefore  the 
case  was  not  properly  before  the  court.  Three  of  the  judges, 
Taney,  Wayne  and  Daniel,  were  of  opinion  that  the  Court 
could  take  cognizance,  and  thought  Scott  could  not  be  a 
citizen.  Two,  Curtis  and  McLean,  decided  that  he  was  a 
citizen.  The  second  question,  whether  Scott  was  a  slave  at 
the  time  he  brought  the  suit,  was  to  determine  the  consti- 
tutionahty  of  the  law  commonly  known  as  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise. On  this  question,  Taney,  Wayne  and  Daniel  held 
the  law  was  unconstitutional.  This  opinion  was  shared  by 
three  others,  making  six  in  all.  Judges  Curtis  and  McLean 
held  the  law  constitutional,  while  Judge  Nelson  gave  no  opinion 
on  either  question.  This  analysis  shows  that  the  decision  was 
not  regular,  and  it  is  held  by  the  best  constitutional  lawyers 
that  it  cannot  be  cited  as  a  precedent. 

The  decision  before  the  public.  But  as  the  decision  stood 
in  the  public  estimation,  it  decided  that  a  slave  was  property, 
and  as  such  he  could  be  carried  into  any  Territory,  and  there 
receive  the  same  protection  accorded  any  property.  That  a 
law  to  prohibit  it  from  entering  into  any  Territory  would  be 
discriminating  against  property  and  therefore  not  warranted 
by  the  Constitution.  The  press  reports,  published  broadcast, 
convinced  hosts  of  people  that  the  judges,  in  the  effort  to  quiet 


290  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

the  serious  agitation,  had  rendered  a  decision  not  warranted 
by  the  facts,  and  therefore  the  decision  was  not  binding.  This 
appeared  to  be  the  attitude  of  most  of  the  RepubHcan  party, 
including  Lincoln.  The  decision  in  law  was  a  victory  for 
the  theory  of  the  South.  They  had  now  the  sanction  of  the 
highest  court  in  the  world,  that  the  Constitution  followed  the 
flag  and  carried  with  it  all  its  protection.  Congress  could  not 
prohibit  slavery  from  the  Territory  any  more  than  it  could 
interfere  with  it  in  the  States.  The  Territory  could  not  inter- 
fere with  it,  since  the  government  is  bound  to  lend  it  protection. 

Its  general  effect.  In  the  North  the  announcement  of  the 
decision  inflamed  the  public  mind.  It  was  charged  that  the 
decision  was  the  result  of  a  conspiracy  to  extend  slavery  into 
all  the  States  and  re-open  the  slave  trade.  They  professed  to 
believe  that  it  was  one  of  many  steps  to  make  the  nation  a 
slave-holding  nation  and  that  all  the  States  were  subject  under 
the  decision  to  being  compelled  to  admit  the  master  with  his 
slaves.  On  the  17th  day  of  June,  1858,  in  the  city  of  Spring- 
field, IlHnois,  Abraham  Lincoln  made  a  speech  in  which  he 
gave  utterance  to  some  remarkable  ideas.  He  declared  his 
opinion  that  the  slavery  question  would  continue  to  agitate 
the  people  until  a  crisis  had  been  reached  and  passed.  He 
said  he  did  not  beheve  the  government  could  permanently 
endure  half  slave  and  half  free.  He  charged  it  upon  the 
leaders  of  the  Democratic  party  to  be  their  purpose  to  extend 
slavery  into  the  entire  North.  He  thought  he  could  see  in  the 
conduct  of  Douglas  in  his  popular  sovereignty  scheme,  in 
Buchanan  and  Pierce  in  the  Lecompton  affair,  and  in  Taney 
in  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  evidence  of  his  fears. 

Lincoln,  a  shrewd  opponent.  These  debates  afforded  the 
best  opportunity  to  examine  the  poUtical  theories  of  these  two 
leaders.  Mr.  Lincoln  had  the  advantage  in  that  he  had 
nothing  to  lose,  while  Douglas  had  much  to  lose.  The  latter 
had  been  in  the  pubHc  eye  for  a  decade,  and  was  accepted 
in  1858  as  the  most  prominent  Democrat  of  the  nation.     All 


ORGANIZATION   IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      291 

the  North  conceded  his  claims  upon  his  party.  His  utterances 
therefore  evoked  the  sharpest  scrutiny.  Lincoln,  aware  of  the 
situation,  drew  the  hnes  so  tightly  about  Douglas  that  the 
latter  could  not  escape.  Douglas  in  the  first  debate  pro- 
pounded a  series  of  questions  to  Lincoln,  who  said  he  would 
answer  them  if  Douglas  would  answer  questions  propounded 
to  him.  Lincoln  with  his  keen  logical  eye  could  see  the  trap 
that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  had  set  for  his  opponent  and  he 
drove  him  into  it.  The  Supreme  Court  had  decreed  that 
Congress  could  not  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories  and  in- 
ferred that  the  territories  could  not  legislate  it  out,  as  the 
Constitution  followed  the  flag. 

Popular  sovereignty  as  Lincoln  saw  it.  The  popular 
sovereignty  theory  of  Douglas  in  the  debate  was  that  the 
people  of  a  Territory  could  do  as  they  liked  about  the  subject, 
vote  it  down  or  vote  it  up.  With  this  in  mind  Lincoln  pressed 
an  answer  to  the  following  question:  "  Can  the  people  of  a 
United  States  Territory,  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  in  any 
lawful  way,  against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  Kmits  prior  to  the  formation 
of  a  State  constitution?"  To  answer  in  the  affirmative  was 
to  deny  constitutional  protection,  and  that  would  offend  the 
slave  States.  To  answer  in  the  negative  would  be  to  belie 
his  theory  upon  which  he  announced  he  would  stand  all  his 
life.  An  affirmative  answer,  in  the  light  of  the  Dred  Scott 
decision,  would  be  to  say  that  "  a  thing  can  be  lawfully  driven 
away  from  a  place  where  it  had  a  right  to  be."  This  contest 
cost  Douglas  severely.  His  popular  sovereignty  theory  was 
not  respected  in  the  slave  States,  and  it  greatly  alarmed  the 
free  States.  Many  of  the  free  States  resented  the  attitude  of 
the  "Little  Giant "  of  minimizing  the  slave  issue.  His  declara- 
tion, made  over  and  over  again,  that  he  did  not  care  "  whether 
you  vote  slavery  up  or  vote  it  down,"  offended  many  of  his 
admirers.  The  people  of  the  free  States  were  concerned 
whether  there  was  a  constitutional  barrier  to  the  introduction 


292  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

of  slavery  into  all  the  States  as  well  as  the  Territories.  Doug- 
las's statement  that  if  a  people  wanted  slavery  they  should 
have  it,  looked  to  many  to  carry  with  it  as  a  logical  conclusion 
that  if  Georgia  wanted  to  buy  slaves  from  Africa,  she  should 
be  allowed  to  do  so.  All  this,  in  the  face  of  the  activity  in 
some  quarters  concerning  the  reopening  of  the  slave  trade, 
alarmed  many  people.  Douglas  repHed  to  this  uneasiness 
that  he  would  be  opposed  to  that  because  the  prohibition  of 
the  slave  trade  was  a  compromise  of  the  Constitution.  In  reply 
to  this  it  was  said  that  it  was  not  a  compromise.  The  Con- 
stitution simply  forbade  the  prohibition  prior  to  the  year  1808. 

In  the  campaign  for  the  Senate  Douglas  defeated  Lincoln 
and  succeeded  himself.  But  he  was  humiliated  by  the  vote. 
Mr.  Lincoln  received  the  majority  in  the  State,  but  owing  to 
the  method  of  districting  Douglas  received  a  majority  of  the 
legislature.  Such  a  victory  was  not  a  source  of  pride  to  a 
man  of  the  type  of  Judge  Douglas. 

State  rights  as  Douglas  understood  them.  Judge  Douglas 
was  careless  in  his  use  of  language.  He  failed  to  make  fine 
discriminations,  more  from  habit  than  inabihty.  He  em- 
ployed phrases  loosely,  which  might  mean  one  thing  or  some 
other  thing.  He  glibly  talked  of  State  Sovereignty,  State 
rights,  reserved  rights,  unconstitutional  tendencies,  revolution- 
ary principles,  etc.,  which  in  his  use  might  mean  various  things, 
but  in  the  use  of  Calhoun  or  Webster  would  mean  specific 
things.  In  his  Chicago  speech  July  9,  1858,  Douglas  said: 
"  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  force  a  slave-holding  State 
upon  an  unwilling  people.  I  deny  their  right  to  force  a  free 
State  upon  an  unwilling  people.  The  great  principle  is  the 
right  of  every  community  to  judge  and  decide  for  itself  whether 
a  thing  is  right  or  wrong,  whether  it  would  be  good  or  evil 
for  them  to  adopt  it;  the  right  of  free  action,  the  right  of  free 
thought,  the  right  of  free  judgment,  upon  the  question  is 
dearer  to  every  true  American  than  any  other  under  a  free 
government.  .  .  .  Whenever  you  put  a  hmitation  upon  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     293 

right  of  any  people  to  decide  what  laws  they  want,  you  have 
destroyed  the  fundamental  principle  of  self-government." 

A  loose  use  of  terms.  At  Jonesboro  he  said,  "  If  we  live 
upon  the  principles  of  State  rights  and  State  Sovereignty,  each 
State  regulating  its  own  affairs  and  minding  its  own  business, 
we  can  go  on  and  extend  indefmitely,  just  as  fast  and  as  far 
as  we  need  the  territory."  From  the  days  of  nullification  the 
terms  State  Sovereignty,  reserved  rights,  revolution,  had 
special  significance  which  had  been  expounded  continuously 
in  the  controversies  in  Congress.  Douglas  was  aware  of  their 
significance.  Their  significance  was  never  better  understood 
than  from  1850  to  i860,  during  which  the  "  Little  Giant  " 
was  the  most  prominent  figure  in  his  party.  Douglas  had  been 
charged  with  purposely  confusing  his  terms  to  avoid  forcing 
the  issue.  At  that  time,  pohtical  theory  was  so  confused  that 
no  party  was  a  unit.  The  state  of  the  parties  was  disintegra- 
tion. The  old  Whig  organization  had  collapsed,  and  before 
another  presidential  election  it  was  entirely  absorbed  by  vari- 
ous other  parties.  The  Abolition  or  Free-soil  party  had 
largely  lost  its  identity  in  the  newly  created  party  called 
Repubhcan,  and  the  radical  abolition  principles  had  given 
way  to  the  more  conservative  view  of  confining  slavery  where 
it  then  existed.  The  Republican  party  stood  upon  the  theory 
that  the  Territories  were  under  the  control  of  Congress  which 
had  the  power  to  exclude  slavery  from  them. 

Division  over  the  subject.  The  Democratic  party  was  far 
from  a  unit  in  theory.  The  Douglas  wing  of  it  held  that  the 
Constitution  neither  established  nor  prohibited  slavery  in  the 
Territories,  but  left  the  people  of  the  Territory  free  to  do  as 
they  liked  in  reference  to  it.  Congress  had  no  power  there- 
fore to  interfere  in  the  matter.  Interference  would  be  in 
violation  of  the  most  sacred  principle,  the  right  of  self-govern- 
ment. The  Douglas  opposition  was  divided  into  two  factions: 
the  one  held  that  the  Constitution  established  slavery  in  the 
Territories  and  denied  the  power  in  either  the  Territories  or 


294  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Congress  to  control  it,  and  in  case  the  territorial  legislature 
failed  to  enact  laws  for  the  protection  of  slavery  in  their 
midst,  it  devolved  upon  Congress  to  supply  the  protection; 
the  other  faction  held  to  the  same  view  regarding  the  con- 
stitutional sanction  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  but  sought 
protection  in  the  courts. 

The  view  of  Douglas  in  1859.  In  the  month  of  September, 
1859,  Harper's  Magazine  published  a  lengthy  article  from  the 
pen  of  Senator  Douglas,  in  which  he  gave  an  exposition  of  his 
popular  sovereignty  theory.  He  examined  the  objections 
offered  by  his  opponents.  To  the  claim  that  if  Congress  can 
erect  a  government  for  a  Territory,  it  can  regulate  through 
that  government  its  institutions;  that  if  the  Congress  is  the 
creator,  the  territorial  government  is  the  creature,  he  replied: 
"  Congress  can  create  inferior  courts  and  confer  upon  them 
jurisdiction,  but  it  cannot  assume  the  jurisdiction  itself." 
Likewise  he  held  that  Congress  could  erect  a  territorial  govern- 
ment, but  it  could  not  become  that  government  itself.  He 
identified  the  Territories  within  the  government  with  the 
colonies  under  the  British  government.  He  declared  that  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
was  the  right  of  self-government;  that  the  colonies  deplored 
the  necessity  of  separation,  and  would  never  have  taken  the 
step  had  it  not  been  for  the  estabhshment  of  the  inalienable 
right  of  self-government.  He  attempted  to  show  that  the 
denial  of  this  principle  had  fixed  slavery  as  an  institution  upon 
Virginia  which  had  frequently  but  vainly  petitioned  the 
mother  country  to  stop  the  importation  of  slaves.  He  quoted 
from  the  Stamp  Act  and  other  documents  to  prove  that  it  was 
not  independence  but  the  right  of  self-government  that  the 
colonies  desired.  He  emphasized  the  fact  that  the  Articles  of 
Confederation  expressly  retained  sovereignty  in  each  State; 
also  the  fact  that  the  States  had  ceded  their  Western  territory 
to  the  general  government  with  the  stipulation  that  inde- 
pendent States  should  be  erected  and  admitted  to  the  Union. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     295 

His  interpretation  of  the  powers  of  Congress.  He  asserted 
that  the  Ordinance  of  1784,  which  was  the  first  attempt  to 
organize  a  government  for  a  territory,  recognized  the  inalien- 
able right  of  the  people  of  the  territory,  when  organized  into 
pohtical  communities,  to  govern  themselves.  The  ordinance 
itself  provided  that  all  preceding  articles  should  be  formed  in  a 
charter  or  compact,  which  means,  according  to  Senator  Douglas, 
that  the  Territories  could  govern  themselves  without  the  inter- 
ference of  Congress,  just  as  the  colonies  claimed  the  right 
without  interference  from  the  British  government.  He  laid 
stress  upon  the  fact  that  Jefferson  was  the  author  of  the 
Ordinance  of  1784.  He  would  have  it  that  the  Ordinance  of 
1787,  which  forbade  slavery  for  all  time,  fell  under  the  same 
principle,  and  undertook  to  explain  the  incompatibility  of  his 
theory  with  the  congressional  prohibition  by  silence.  The 
least  tenable  position  of  Douglas,  was  his  explanation  of  the 
Clause  of  the  Constitution  which  reads:  "The  Congress 
shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and 
regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belong- 
ing to  the  United  States."  He  argued  that  territory  in  this 
connection  referred  to  unoccupied  lands  owned  by  the  govern- 
ment, and  not  by  the  people  who  settled  them.  This  power 
allows  Congress  to  dispose  of  public  lands,  military  sites, 
cannon,  muskets,  old  ships,  etc.  It  applies,  he  insisted,  to 
States  as  well  as  to  Territories,  but  it  did  not  extend  to  the 
control  of  domestic  institutions  and  internal  polity  of  the 
people  either  in  State  or  Territory,  otherwise  freedom  and 
sovereignty  of  the  States  would  be  exterminated.  He  de- 
clared such  ideas  repugnant  to  the  genius  of  our  system.  It 
effectually  blots  out  the  line  of  separation  of  the  States  from 
the  Federal  government.  It  denies  the  very  principle  for 
which  our  fathers  fought.  It  asserted  a  thing  was  wrong  after 
the  Revolution  that  was  right  before  it.  He  claimed  this 
clause  referred  to  the  power  to  govern  the  seat  of  government, 
docks,  navy  yards,  arsenals,  etc.     In  proof  of  his  contention 


296  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

he  quoted  the  tenth  amendment:  "  The  powers  not  delegated 
to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it 
to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to 
the  people." 

Rights  in  a  territory.  He  insisted  that  a  denial  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  popular  sovereignty  would  assert  the  right  to  maintain 
provinces  within  the  government.  This  is  forbidden  by  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  To 
avoid  it  the  Constitution  provides  for  the  admission  of  new 
States  into  the  Union.  The  power  to  acquire  territory,  he 
urged,  carries  with  it  the  power  to  preserve  and  apply  it  to 
the  purposes  for  which  the  territory  was  acquired;  hence  the 
right  to  secure  to  the  territory  self-government.  The  citizen 
and  the  government  both  enter  it,  and  the  government  cannot 
exercise  any  power  not  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Constitution. 
All  this  course  of  reasoning  was  employed  to  reach  the  end  in 
view.  Douglas  had,  as  he  thought,  discovered  a  method  by 
which  he  could  allay  the  agitation  over  the  slavery  question,  a 
question  looked  upon  as  having  reached  the  critical  stage. 
He  called  his  method  by  the  catch  phrase,  "  popular  sover- 
eignty." It  permitted  the  people  of  a  Territory  to  order  their 
own  institutions  without  the  interference  of  Congress.  This, 
he  believed,  was  the  logical  remqdy  for  the  acute  situation. 
He  supported  his  policy  by  asserting  it  to  be  the  fundamental 
theory  of  the  fathers,  as  revealed  in  their  acts  as  well  as  in  the 
Constitution  itself. 

Real  motive  of  Douglas.  There  are  those  who  believe 
that  the  enthusiasm  of  Douglas  in  the  support  of  the  popular 
sovereignty  theory  can  be  traced  to  his  ambitions  to  reach  the 
presidency.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  motive,  the  prin- 
ciple, as  expressed  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  was  the  great- 
est political  blunder  of  the  decade.  Its  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  for  the  sake  of  a  principle,  reopened  to  slavery  the 
vast  Northwest  which  had  been  pledged  to  freedom,  a  con- 
summation accepted  by  all  parties  of  all  sections,  as  final. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      297 

From  that  moment  the  West  became  the  battle-ground 
between  the  slave  and  the  free  State  interests.  The  "  Irre- 
pressible Conflict"  seemed  at  hand.  Disunion  and  Secession 
were  words  of  frequent  use  in  and  about  the  Capitol  at  Wash- 
ington. Opposition  to  the  extension  of  slavery  was  rapidly 
unifying,  while  the  "popular  sovereignty  "  people  of  the  North 
and  the  State  Sovereignty  people  of  the  South  were  drifting 
away  from  each  other. 

Importance  of  his  loyalty.  As  between  Secession  and  per- 
petuity of  the  Union,  there  was  to  him  but  one  choice  for  the 
patriot.  It  would  be  difficult  to  estimate  the  effect  of  Doug- 
las's influence.  As  the  recognized  leader  of  the  opposition  to 
Lincoln  a  refusal  to  support  the  war  policy  of  the  President 
would  have  resulted  in  incalculable  evil  to  the  country.  He 
died  at  the  very  outset  of  the  test  of  arms,  even  before  a 
single  great  battle  had  been  fought,  but  not  until  he  had  given 
the  weight  of  his  powerful  name  to  the  cause  of  the  Union. 
Whatever  of  bitterness  might  have  been  occasioned  by  his 
fatal  political  blunder  for  the  sake  of  an  untenable  theory,  it 
was  all  atoned  for  by  his  manly  attitude  toward  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  war  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union.  "  Popular 
sovereignty  "  on  the  one  hand,  and  State  Sovereignty  on  the 
other,  with  slavery  as  the  fertile  breeder  of  both,  went  down 
together  in  the  crash  of  civil  war. 


CHAPTER  XV 

NATIONAL  NOMINATING  CONVENTION  OF   i860 

Ominous  signs.  The  contest  which  elected  Buchanan  to 
the  presidency  by  a  narrow  margin,  though  not  giving  him  a 
majority  of  the  popular  vote,  and  the  amazing  growth  of  anti- 
slavery  sentiment  showed  unmistakable  signs  of  disunion. 
The  leaders  both  North  and  South  expressed  their  fears  for 
the  Union.  The  South  had  already  solidified  and  was  ready 
to  present  a  solid  column  for  the  protection  of  its  pecuhar  insti- 
tution. The  North  was  rapidly  taking  the  same  form  for  an 
opposite  purpose  —  the  arrest  of  the  further  spread  of  slavery. 
Douglas  rested  his  claims  for  the  presidency  upon  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  legislation  of  which  he  was  author,  which  legislation 
had  replaced  the  Missouri  Compromise.  This  latter  had 
been  law  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  and  the  anti-slavery  element 
of  the  North  did  not  take  kindly  to  its  repeal  and  arrayed 
itself  against  Douglas.  His  popular  sovereignty  policy  was 
equally  obnoxious  to  the  South  which  declared  for  constitu- 
tional protection  of  slavery.  Douglas  was  warned  of  the 
South's  attitude  toward  his  poHcy  in  the  nominating  conven- 
tion, —  the  same  convention  which  accepted  Buchanan  as 
the  presidential  candidate  when  it  could  not  have  Pierce. 

Situation  of  Buchanan.  Buchanan's  obligation  to  the  sec- 
tion which  nominated  him  embarrassed  him  not  a  Httle  in  his 
administration.  In  his  attempt  to  honor  his  obligation  to  the 
South  he  fell  beneath  the  wheels  of  his  own  chariot.  His 
alleged  connection  with  the  withholding  of  the  announcement 

29S 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES       299 

of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  until  after  the  election  and  his 
attempt  to  enforce  theLecompton  constitution  upon  the  people 
of  Kansas,  concentrated  the  Northern  sentiment  against  him. 

Lincoln  and  Douglas.  The  wide  general  interest  in  the 
Ilhnois  contest  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas  for  a  seat  in  the 
United  States  Senate  was  due  to  the  position  each  took  upon 
the  sensitive  question  of  slavery.  Lincoln  had  startled  the 
entire  nation  by  his  Springfield  speech  of  acceptance  in  which 
he  declared  that  the  nation  cannot  permanently  endure  half 
slave  and  half  free.  This  was  accepted  as  the  challenge  to 
the  South.  Douglas  partially  retrieved  his  position  by  pro- 
nouncing the  Lincoln  doctrine  revolutionary.  His  position  of 
popular  sovereignty  as  against  Lincoln's  position  of  ultimate 
freedom,  unified  the  Democrats  of  the  North,  but  failed  to  win 
those  of  the  South.  Then  followed  the  widely-read  debates 
of  Lincoln  and  Douglas.  These  at  once  became  of  national 
interest.  They  cleared  the  poHtical  field  of  ambiguous  issues. 
Lincoln  at  once  became  a  national  figure.  Douglas  had  been 
one  for  years. 

Democratic  situation.  While  the  spirit  of  sectionaHsm  was 
at  white  heat  the  Democratic  convention  met  at  Charleston, 
South  Carolina,  to  -nominate  a  successor  to  James  Buchanan. 
A  struggle  was  imminent  between  the  Northern  and  the 
Southern  Democracy  with  the  advantage  to  the  Northern 
wing.  But  this  advantage  was  counterbalanced  by  the  con- 
vention being  held  in  South  Carolina,  famous  for  her  doctrines 
of  State  Sovereignty. 

Charleston  convention.  The  convention  assembled  on  the 
23d  of  April  with  every  State  represented  and  with  contest- 
ing delegations  from  New  York  and  lUinois.  This  latter 
fact  was  ominous,  as  one  delegation  from  each  State  was 
anti-Douglas. 

Organization.  On  the  second  day  the  committee  on  per- 
manent organization  recommended  the  suggestive  rule  of 
voting  in  the  convention,  "  That  in  any  State  in  which  it  has 


300  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

not  been  provided  or  directed  by  its  State  convention  how 
its  vote  may  be  given,  the  convention  will  recognize  the  right 
of  each  delegate  to  cast  his  individual  vote."  This  was 
against  the  "  unit  rule  "  which  in  Republican  conventions  in 
recent  years  had  created  much  disturbance.  Another  signifi- 
cant position  taken  by  this  historic  convention  was  its  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee  on  resolutions,  and  the  decision  of  the 
body  not  to  present  the  nominations  until  after  this  committee 
had  reported. 

Contest  over  delegate  and  platform.  This  ruHng  left  the 
convention  with  little  to  do  until  after  the  report  of  the  plat- 
form. On  the  third  day  of  the  convention  the  entire  session 
was  taken  up  in  angry  debate  over  the  seating  of  delegates. 
The  matter  ended  with  the  former  decision  confirmed,  and 
the  Douglas  delegates  from  both  New  York  and  Illinois 
retained  their  seats.  It  was  known  to  the  convention  that 
the  platform  was  giving  the  committee  a  deal  of  trouble. 
Frequent  reports  came  from  the  committee  rooms,  all  to  the 
same  effect,  that  the  agreement  upon  the  slavery  question  was 
not  in  sight.  The  fourth  day  was  spent  in  angry  debate  and  fre- 
quent threats  of  bolting  the  convention  were  heard  on  all  sides. 
On  the  fifth  day,  the  committee  still  unable  to  agree  upon  the 
platform,  the  matter  was  submitted  to  the  convention. 

The  platform.  The  majority  report  was  an  endorsement 
of  the  Cincinnati  platform  which  declared  that  Congress  could 
not  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  Territories;  that  the  territorial 
legislature  had  no  authority  to  abolish  it  in  the  Territories,  nor 
to  prohibit  its  introduction  therein,  nor  to  impair  the  rights  of 
property  in  slaves  by  any  legislation.  It  declared  it  to  be  the 
duty  of  Congress  to  protect  the  rights  of  property  in  the  Terri- 
tories. Another  resolution  favored  the  acquisition  of  Cuba. 
This  was  the  extreme  position  of  Jefferson  Davis,  the  most  dis- 
tinguished leader  of  the  South  at  the  time. 

Minority  report.  The  minority  report  accepted  the  Cin- 
cinnati platform  with  additional    resolutions    similar  to  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     301 

majority  report,  except  those  referring  to  the  status  of  the 
slave.  It  declared  all  rights  of  property  are  judicial  in 
character,  and  pledged  the  Democracy  of  the  nation  to  abide 
by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  such  matters.  This 
report  was  signed  by  the  members  of  all  the  free  States  except 
California,  Oregon  and  Massachusetts.  They  represented  one 
hundred  and  seventy-two  electoral  votes,  while  the  majority 
report  represented  but  one  hundred  and  twenty-seven. 

Popular  sovereignty  in  the  convention.  It  was  clear  from 
the  beginning  that  the  point  of  dispute  was  the  popular  sov- 
ereignty poUcy  of  Douglas.  It  appeared  that  he  had  staked 
his  political  life  upon  its  adoption.  Yancey  of  Alabama  led 
the  fight  for  the  Southern  pohcy,  which  was  best  stated  by 
Davis:  "  That  neither  Congress  nor  a  territorial  legislature, 
whether  by  a  direct  legislation  or  legislation  of  an  indirect 
and  unfriendly  character,  possesses  power  to  annul  or  impair 
the  constitutional  right  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  to 
take  his  slave  property  into  the  common  territories,  and  there 
hold  and  enjoy  the  same  while  the  territorial  condition  re- 
mains." It  was  also  asserted  that  when  the  territorial  govern- 
ment failed  to  afford  such  protection  the  Federal  government 
was  bound  to  do  so.  » 

Adoption  of  the  Douglas  platform.  On  the  30th,  the  con- 
vention having  been  in  session  since  the  23d,  the  vote  on  the 
platform  was  taken.  Butler's  amendment  to  adopt  the  Cin- 
cinnati platform  as  the  convention's  platform  was  rejected 
by  105  yeas  to  198  nays.  Then  the  vote  on  the  minority  or 
Douglas  report  was  called  and  after  strenuous  efforts  to  table 
it  had  failed,  it  resulted  in  165  votes  in  favor  and  138  votes 
against  it.  Of  the  165  votes,  twelve  were  from  slave  States. 
Of  the  138  votes,  thirty  were  from  free  States.  When  it  was 
announced  that  the  platform  was  adopted.  Walker  of  Alabama 
read  a  series  of  twelve  resolutions  which  purported  to  be 
specific  instructions  to  the  delegates  by  the  State  convention 
which  had  selected  them  to  represent  the  State  in  the  nationnl 


302  POLITICAL   THEORY  AND   PARTY 

convention.  He  informed  the  convention  that  the  delegates, 
unable  to  reconcile  further  participation  in  the  convention 
with  their  instructions,  would  withdraw. 

Withdrawal  of  Southern  States.  Barry  of  Mississippi  was 
next  to  secure  the  floor  and  proceeded  to  state,  like  the  Alabama 
speaker,  that  their  delegation  by  unanimous  agreement  would 
withdraw,  and  the  State  would  not  participate  in  the  further 
proceedings  of  the  convention;  whereupon  they  left  the  hall. 
Louisiana  was  next  to  make  a  like  statement,  but  two  of  the 
delegates  refused  to  abide  by  their  instructions.  The  next 
State  heard  was  South  Carolina  whose  protest  was  brief  but 
pointed.  Florida  was  next  to  follow,  Texas  followed  Florida, 
to  be  in  turn  followed  by  Arkansas.  Georgia  asked  the  privi- 
lege to  retire  for  consultation,  which  was  granted.  The  con- 
vention then  adjourned  for  the  day.  On  the  following  day 
Georgia  was  the  first  to  speak,  and  announced  its  decision  to 
withdraw.  Most  of  the  delegates  in  withdrawing  announced 
that  the  State  would  not  be  represented  inasmuch  as  no  one 
could  assume  authority.  However,  some  of  the  States  were 
represented  in  the  further  balloting.  The  entire  loss  was  only 
about  one-seventh  of  the  whole  vote. 

Adjournment  of  convention.  Reduced  in  membership  and 
a  degree  of  order  resumed,  the  convention  decided  to  ballot 
for  a  candidate  at  four  o'clock.  The  two-thirds  rule  was  as 
usual  the  occasion  for  a  stormy  time.  It  was  finally  ordered 
by  the  vote  of  141  to  112.  On  the  first  ballot  nine  candidates 
were  voted  for,  with  Douglas  far  in  the  lead,  having  received 
145^  votes  to  107  scattered  among  eight  other  candidates. 
This  was  a  clear  majority  and  a  plurality  of  103I,  since  Guth- 
rie, the  next  highest,  had  but  forty-two  votes.  It  was  soon 
discovered  that  there  was  an  invulnerable  position  to  Douglas. 
On  the  seventh  ballot,  he  reached  150^^;  with  the  exception 
of  the  thirteenth  ballot,  when  he  lost  one  vote,  he  maintained 
his  former  vote  down  to  the  twenty-third,  when  he  reached 
152I,  the  high-water  mark.     He  dropped  back  one  vote  and 

I 


I 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      303 

remained  there  down  to  the  fifty-seventh  ballot.  The  opposi- 
tion was  scattered,  with  Guthrie  in  the  lead  never  reachino' 
higher  than  66f .  Thus  far  the  opposition  had  been  successful, 
and  now  with  the  delegates  worn  out,  a  motion  was  made  to 
adjourn  to  meet  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  on  the  i8th  of  June. 
After  some  discussion,  the  motion  was  carried,  and  the  famous 
Charleston  convention,  on  the  loth  day  of  its  session,  adjourned 
to  a  city  farther  north. 

The  Seceders'  convention.  In  the  meantime  the  retiring 
delegates  held  sessions  in  another  hall.  Bayard  of  Delaware 
was  elected  chairman.  It  adopted  an  extreme  pro-slavery 
platform.  Enough  had  been  done  to  declare  to  the  country 
the  purpose  of  the  seceders.  They  continued  their  sessions 
for  four  days  and  adjourned  to  meet  the  nth  of  June  in  the 
city  of  Richmond,  Virginia.  Representatives  from  Alabama, 
Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Texas,  Arkansas,  Missouri,  Florida, 
Georgia,  South  CaroHna,  Virginia  and  Delaware  took  part 
in  the  proceedings  of  the  seceders.  Indications  soon  developed 
that  an  influence  at  Washington  was  giving  the  seceders 
moral  backing.  An  address  to  the  convention  signed  by 
tweny-one  names,  principal  among  which  were  those  of 
Jefferson  Davis,  Robert  Toombs,  Judah  P.  Benjamin,  John 
Slidell  and  James  Mason,  was  issued,  approving  the  "lofty 
manifestation  of  adherence  to  principle,  rising  superior  to  all 
considerations  of  expediency,  to  all  trammels  of  party,  and 
looking  with  an  eye  single  to  the  defense  of  the  constitutional 
rights  of  the  States."  It  recommended  that  the  proposed 
Richmond  convention  take  no  action,  but  await  the  result  of 
the  Baltimore  meeting.  It  was  also  recommended  that  the 
seceding  States  send  delegates  to  this  latter  convention,  and 
that  the  rights  of  the  States,  as  set  forth  in  the  majority  report 
of  the  Charleston  convention,  be  insisted  upon.  In  case  of  a 
failure  to  secure  such  rights,  the  remaining  Southern  States 
could  join  the  seceders.  On  the  nth  of  June  the  seceders 
convened.     Eight  States  were  represented  and  a  congressional 


304  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

district  from  each  State  of  Tennessee  and  Virginia.  After 
organization,  it  adopted  a  resolution  fixing  the  subsequent 
meeting  on  the  21st  of  June.  It  then  adjourned  to  await  the 
action  of  the  Baltimore  convention.  Tliis  was  in  accordance 
with  the  Davis  program. 

Baltimore  convention.  On  the  i8th  of  June  the  Charleston 
convention  proper  re-assembled  at  Baltimore,  with  full  repre- 
sentations from  Maine,  New  Hamsphire,  Vermont,  Massachu- 
setts, Rhode  Island,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Maryland, 
Virginia,  North  Carohna,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan, 
Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Missouri,  California  and  Ore- 
gon. Connecticut  and  Delaware  were  partially  represented. 
The  first  sensation  was  created  by  the  ruHng  of  Chairman 
Cusliing,  that  only  the  States  which  were  represented  in  the 
Charleston  convention  at  the  time  of  its  adjournment  should 
be  called.  Consequently  eight  states  —  South  Carohna, 
Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Texas  and 
Arkansas  —  were  not  included  in  the  roll-call.  The  Southern 
States,  acting  in  accordance  with  the  program,  sent  delegates, 
but  unfortunately  some  of  them  had  contesting  delegations. 

Douglas  platform  adopted.  On  the  fourth  day  the  majority 
report  was  adopted  by  sections.  It  remained  to  determine 
whether  the  suggestions  emanating  from  Washington  would 
be  acted  upon. 

Conduct  of  Virginia  and  other  States.  This  season  of  un- 
certainty was  not  of  long  duration.  Virginia  announced  the 
decision  of  the  delegates  to  withdraw.  The  second  crisis  in 
the  Democratic  national  convention  was  on.  North  Carolina 
followed  her  neighbor  on  the  north,  and  was  followed  in  turn 
by  Tennessee,  Maryland  and  California.  Delaware,  a  part 
of  Kentucky,  and  a  part  of  Missouri  followed  the  withdrawing 
delegates.  The  real  sensation  was  reached  when  the  chair- 
man, Caleb  Cushing  of  Massachusetts,  withdrew,  and  cast 
his  influence  with  the  Southern  wing  of  the  Democracy.  With 
the  chairman  went  also  a  part  of  the  Massachusetts  delegation. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      305 

Work  of  the  convention.  This  left  twenty-live  States 
represented,  some  by  full  and  some  by  partial  delegations. 
On  the  second  ballot  Douglas  received  all  the  votes  except  13, 
but  he  was  far  below  the  two-thirds  requirement,  which  was 
202,  as  the  convention  was  originally  constituted  of  303  mem- 
bers. He  was  declared  the  nominee  on  the  ground  that  the 
two-thirds  vote  meant  to  apply  to  those  voting  in  the  con- 
vention. Fitzpatrick  of  Alabama  was  nominated  Vice-Presi- 
dent, but  later  he  declined  and  H.  V.  Johnson  of  Georgia  was 
nominated.  Before  adjourning,  the  convention  again  resolved 
that  the  Supreme  Court  was  judge  of  territorial  rights  and  its 
decisions  should  be  respected  by  all. 

Work  of  the  second  convention  of  seceders.  The  retiring 
delegates  met  on  the  28th  of  June,  in  Baltimore,  with  represent- 
atives from  twenty-one  States.  They  proceeded  to  nominate 
John  C.  Breckinridge  of  Kentucky  for  President  and  Joseph 
Lane  of  Oregon  for  Vice-President.  The  ballot  showed  2i| 
votes  of  Northern  States,  as  follows:  Massachusetts  8,  Penn- 
sylvania 4,  CaHfornia  4,  Oregon  3 ,  New  York  2  and  Vermont  ^. 

Ultimate  effect.  Thus  the  most  dramatic  as  well  as  the 
most  disastrous  national  convention  of  the  party  of  Jefferson 
and  Jackson  had  met  and  adjourned.  Unable  to  bridge  the 
chasm  created  by  the  presence  of  slavery  in  America,  it  hope- 
lessly divided  the  party  it  represented.  The  party  went  forth 
to  meet  a  new  and  vigorous  organization,  only  to  go  down  in 
defeat  from  which  it  did  not  fully  recover  in  half  a  century. 

The  Constitutional  Union  party.  The  next  party  in  the 
field  was  the  remainder  of  the  American  or  "  Know-nothing  " 
party,  which  had  absorbed  the  small  element  of  the  Whigs 
that  had  refused  to  enter  either  the  Democratic  or  the  Repub- 
lican party.  This  party  now  assumed  the  name  "  Constitu- 
tional Union"  party.  Its  only  convention  met  in  Baltimore 
on  the  9th  of  May,  with  most  of  the  States  represented.  It 
organized  by  the  election  of  Hunt  of  New  York  as  chairman. 
On  the  preliminary  contest  it  was  revealed  that  the  line  of 


3o6  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

difference  was  largely  geographical  and  ran  with  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line.  The  Southern  element  united  upon  Houston  of 
Texas,  while  the  Northern  element  took  up  Bell  of  Tennessee. 
Crittenden  of  Kentucky,  McLean  of  Ohio,  and  Everett  of 
Massachusetts  each  had  a  following.  On  the  second  ballot 
Bell  was  nominated,  after  which  Everett  was  unanimously 
chosen  for  Vice-President.  The  convention  adopted  a  brief 
statement  of  principles,  the  most  significant  of  which  was, 
"  The  Constitution  of  the  country,  the  Union  of  the  States, 
and  the  enforcement  of  the  laws,"  as  the  only  political  prin- 
ciple of  the  party. 

Prospects  of  the  Republican  party.  The  greatest  interest 
was  shown  by  the  country  in  the  approaching  RepubHcan 
convention,  which  was  called  to  meet  in  Chicago  on  the  i6th 
of  May.  This  interest  was  due  in  part  to  the  great  vigor 
developed  in  the  campaign  of  Fremont  four  years  previous. 
It  was  recalled  that  a  change  of  the  vote  of  Pennsylvania  and 
either  Indiana  or  Illinois  would  have  elected  Fremont  over 
Buchanan.  These  three  States,  upon  the  slavery  issue,  were 
almost  sure  to  be  anti-Democratic.  Recent  elections  had 
repudiated  the  Buchanan  Administration  and  had  struck 
terror  to  the  heart  of  the  pro-slavery  element  of  the  country. 
Added  to  this  general  situation,  was  the  irretrievable  schism 
in  the  party.  All  this  was  pretty  well  understood  at  the  time 
of  the  assembhng  of  the  Republican  convention.  Another 
element  of  interest  in  this  convention  was  the  large  number  of 
able  leaders  who  had  been  men  of  the  first  rank  in  their  re- 
spective parties.  Chase  of  Ohio  was  known  far  and  wide  as  the 
distinguished  anti-slavery  Democratic  leader.  His  ability 
was  not  that  of  an  agitator  but  that  of  an  able  political 
thinker  and  statesman. 

Seward's  candidacy.  Seward  of  New  York  was  the  gen- 
erally recognized  leader  of  the  new  ideas  embodied  in  the 
Republican  movement.  His  political  ability  was  of  the  very 
first  rank.     His  career  both  as  governor  of,  and  as  United 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      307 

States  senator  from,  his  State  was  brilliant  and  able.  Per- 
haps no  one  had  perceived  the  drift  of  affairs  with  a  clearer 
vision  than  he  expressed  in  his  ''  higher  law  "  doctrine  and  his 
"  irrepressible  conflict  "  speech.  In  all  that  emphasized  the 
creed  of  the  new  party,  Seward  seemed  the  undisputed  leader. 
Before  the  assembling  of  the  delegates  in  convention,  and  up 
to  the  very  hour  of  balloting,  the  Seward  candidacy  monopo- 
lized the  hopes  of  a  vast  majority  of  the  people. 

Lincoln's  opportunity.  There  were  many  thoughtful  men, 
who,  turning  over  in  their  minds  the  probable  hne  of  battle  and 
remembering  the  career  of  the  fearless  antagonist  of  Douglas, 
were  growing  into  the  conviction  that  Seward  could  not  win, 
but  that  Lincoln  could.  How  kindly  the  fates  deal  with  some 
mortals!  When  the  possibihty  of  Lincoln's  nomination  for 
President  was  suggested  to  him,  he  frankly  rephed  that  he 
did  not  feel  that  he  was  fit  for  the  place.  He  had  looked  with 
some  favor  upon  the  suggestion  that  he  might  be  chosen  as 
candidate  for  Vice-President.  In  fact  he  frequently  mentioned 
himself  in  that  relation.  However,  his  trip  East,  in  1859, 
induced  him  to  see  the  situation  in  a  new  Hght.  His  remark- 
able receptions  in  Ohio,  and  especially  in  New  York  City  when 
he  delivered  his  address  in  Cooper  Union,  could  not  fail  to  be 
recognized  as  signs  of  his  position  before  the  American  public. 
His  tour  through  New  England  was  but  a  continuation  of  the 
same  general  ovation.  There  was  no  doubt  whatever  that 
after  the  trip  to  New  York,  Abraham  Lincoln  was  the  strong- 
est competitor  that  Seward  would  meet  in  the  coming  contest. 

The  Convention  in  session.  The  convention  met  in  a  tem- 
porary frame  building  erected  for  the  special  purpose  of  this 
convention  by  the  city  of  Chicago,  called  the"  "Wigwam." 
It  proved  to  be  an  admirable  arrangement.  It  admitted  the 
seating  of  thousands  of  spectators.  In  fact  the  Chicago  plans 
were  in  keeping  with  the  interest  that  had  already  developed 
in  the  outcome  of  the  convention.  The  convention  was  called 
to  order  by  Morgan  of  New  York,  chairman  of  the  national 


3o8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Republican  committee  who  named  David  Wilmot  of  Penn- 
sylvania for  temporary  chairman  of  the  convention.  This 
name,  so  frequently  heard  for  the  past  fourteen  years  both 
in  and  out  of  Congress,  thrilled  the  great  body  as  with  an 
electric  current. 

On  the  second  day  the  majority  rule  was  reported  and 
adopted  and  it  was  decided  by  331  to  130  that  the  majority  was 
to  be  computed  upon  the  number  present.  This  rule  has  since 
been  the  practise  of  RepubHcan  conventions,  instead  of  the 
two-thirds  rule,  the  Democratic  practise,  from  the  first  conven- 
tion in  1832  down  to  the  present  time  (1910). 

The  platform.  The  report  of  the  committee  on  resolutions 
was  awaited  with  supreme  interest,  as  the  incidents  of  the 
Charleston  convention  lent  unusual  importance  to  the  action 
of  this  convention  in  the  adoption  of  a  platform.  It  was 
beheved  that  this  part  of  the  Chicago  proceedings  would  be 
occasion  for  some  bitterness.  This  suspicion,  however,  was 
unfounded.  The  vast  assembly  present  at  every  session 
seemed  stirred  with  but  one  impulse  —  success  at  the  polls. 
It  greeted  with  uncontrolled  enthusiasm  the  appearance  of 
every  distinguished  leader.  Its  enthusiasm  was  such  as  is 
born  of  unity  of  purpose,  singleness  of  determination  and 
anticipation  of  victory.  The  reading  of  the  platform  was 
punctuated  with  great  demonstrations  of  approval  —  signifi- 
cant contrast  with  the  situation  at  Charleston.  The  committee 
was  wise  in  reducing  the  resolutions  to  two  forms,  namely, 
declarations  of  the  negative  character  followed  by  those  of 
the  positive  character.  The  platform  led  out  in  a  justifica- 
tion of  the  existence  of  the  RepubHcan  party.  It  declared 
its  devotion  to  the  principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence and  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  It  declared 
the  Union  to  be  the  source  of  the  multiplied  blessings  of  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  and  renewed  the  party's  devotion 
to  an  indestructible  Union  of  the  States.  It  declared  against 
the  popular  sovereignty  theory  of  Douglas,  the  Lecompton 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      309 

policy  of  Buchanan,  the  property  theory  of  Judge  Taney  and 
his  associates,  and  denied  that  the  Constitution  carried  slavery 
into  the  territories  of  the  nation. 

Specific  planks.  In  positive  terms  it  positively  declared  the 
authority  of  Congress  to  prohibit  the  further  extension  of 
slavery  into  the  Territories,  and  to  deal  with  it  in  the  Terri- 
tories where  it  then  existed,  on  the  principle  that  "  The  normal 
condition  of  all  the  territory  of  the  United  States  is  freedom." 
It  recognized  the  principle  of  State  autonomy,  by  declaring 
each  State  free  to  regulate  its  own  domestic  affairs  and  should 
not  be  molested  by  the  Federal  government.  It  demanded  the 
immediate  admission  of  Kansas  as  a  State  under  her  free  con- 
stitution. Having  thus  clearly  defined  its  position  on  slavery, 
it  proceeded  to  declare  upon  other  questions.  It  pronounced 
in  favor  of  the  protection  policy  of  raising  revenue,  the  internal 
improvement  policy  of  liberal  appropriations  for  rivers  and 
harbors,  the  homestead  policy  to  secure  to  the  actual  settler 
the  lands  in  the  West,  the  construction  of  a  Pacific  railroad  to 
connect  the  two  oceans,  and  some  other  minor  points. 

Events  preceding  the  nominations.  The  platform  having 
been  constructed,  the  real  contest  took  place  in  the  selection  of 
a  standard-bearer.  It  was  known  that  the  day  would  be  filled 
with  soul-stirring  scenes.  Perhaps  nothing  in  American  life 
is  so  beyond  the  powers  of  description  as  a  great  national  con- 
vention of  a  hopeful  political  party.  And  perhaps  there  is 
no  period  of  such  a  convention  equal  to  that  which  just  pre- 
cedes the  presentation  of  the  names  of  the  candidates.  The 
night  preceding  this  day  the  leaders  are  busy  in  their  respective 
headquarters  receiving  impressions  from  various  sources,  and 
completing  plans  for  the  closing  scene;  while  the  interested 
onlooker  is  either  on  the  streets  giving  vent  to  his  surplus 
enthusiasm,  or  Hstening  to  the  oratory  of  an  effusive  politician. 
On  the  assembling  of  the  delegates  for  the  real  struggle,  to  be 
witnessed  by  thousands  of  people  representing  every  station 
in  American  life,  the  scene  beggars  description. 


3IO  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

The  real  contest.  While  it  was  understood  that  Penn- 
sylvania would  present  Cameron;  Ohio,  Chase;  New  Jersey, 
Dayton;  and  Missouri,  Bates,  it  was  well  known  from  the  first 
day  that  the  contest  would  be  between  Lincoln  and  Seward. 
The  night  preceding  the  nomination,  Greeley,  one  of  the 
shrewdest  observers  in  the  convention,  gave  up  all  hope  for 
Bates  and  telegraphed  the  Tribune  that  Seward  would  be 
nominated.  An  incident  which  led  to  an  important  result 
was  the  seating  of  the  auditors.  The  Seward  people  were 
determined  to  arouse  popular  favor  for  their  leader,  who,  it 
was  beheved,  had  the  votes  of  a  sufficient  number  of  delegates 
to  insure  his  nomination.  To  this  end  they  organized  a  mam- 
moth street  parade  prior  to  entering  the  Wigwam  for  the  final 
test.  In  the  meantime  the  Lincoln  managers  counteracted 
the  effect  of  the  Seward  demonstration  by  rushing  their  fol- 
lowers, by  the  thousands,  into  the  Wigwam  to  take  advan- 
tageous positions,  in  order  to  outdo  the  Seward  enthusiasm 
at  the  proper  time.  When  the  Seward  element  arrived  at  the 
Wigwam  and  found  the  seating  space  already  occupied,  it 
was  too  late  to  rectify  the  blunder.  The  final  struggle  was 
therefore  to  take  place  in  what  was  practically  a  Lincoln  mass 
meeting. 

Candidates'  names  presented.  When  the  chairman  an- 
nounced that  the  naming  of  the  candidates  for  President  was 
in  order,  William  M.  Evarts  of  New  York  was  recognized  by 
the  chair.  He  said,  "  I  take  the  liberty  to  name  as  a  candidate 
for  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  WiUiam  H. 
Seward."  The  chair  then  recognized  Norman  B.  Judd,  of 
Illinois,  who  said,  "  On  behalf  of  the  delegation  from  Illinois, 
I  desire  to  put  in  nomination  as  a  candidate  for  President  of 
the  United  States,  Abraham  Lincoln  of  Illinois."  Dudley,  of 
New  Jersey,  nominated  Dayton;  Governor  Reeder,  of  Penn- 
sylvania, Cameron;  Cartter,  of  Ohio,  Chase;  and  Blair,  of 
Missouri,  Bates.  The  wildest  enthusiasm  followed  the  second- 
ing of  the  nomination  of  Lincoln  by  the  Indiana  delegation. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      311 

When  ]Michigan  seconded  the  nomination  of  Seward,  the  New- 
York  delegation  arose  and  set  the  galleries  aflame  with  a 
frenzy  such  as  had  not  yet  been  heard  in  the  convention. 
Then  Oliio,  unrestrained  by  the  fact  that  Chase  was  that 
State's  candidate,  seconded  Lincoln's  nomination,  which  was 
the  signal  for  another  demonstration  which,  fairly  eclipsed 
that  given  to  Seward.  When  it  died  down  the  galleries  took  it 
up  again  and  fairly  made  the  building  tremble. 

First  ballot.  The  first  ballot  was  ordered.  The  whole 
number  of  votes  cast  was  465 ;  233  were  necessary  for  a  choice. 
On  the  first  ballot  twelve  candidates  were  voted  for.  All 
interest  centered  upon  the  two  men,  Seward  and  Lincoln.  As 
the  vote  proceeded  great  enthusiasm  greeted  the  announce- 
ment of  the  names  of  these  men  by  their  respective  following. 
The  vote  stood :  Seward,  173^ ;  Lincoln,  102 ;  Wade,  3 ;  Cameron, 
5o§;  Bates,  48;  McLean,  12;  Chase,  49;  Dayton,  14;  Collamer, 
10;  and  Read,  Sumner,  and  Fremont,  one  each. 

Seward's  opposition.  The  most  significant  fact  of  the  first 
ballot  was  that  Lincoln  received  four  votes  from  Cameron's 
State  and  eight  from  Chase's.  Amidst  the  greatest  excite- 
ment the  second  ballot  was  ordered,  when  Cameron's  name 
was  withdrawn. 

Second  and  third.  On  the  second  ballot  the  first  wave  of 
enthusiasm  that  swept  the  convention  was  when  Ohio  gave 
Lincoln  fourteen  votes.  This  was  only  preliminary  to  that 
which  enveloped  the  assembly  when  forty-four  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania delegates  came  to  the  "Rail  Sphtter  from  the  West." 
All  of  Collamer's  vote  joined  the  Lincoln  vote.  At  the  end 
of  the  roll-call  the  significant  fact  faced  the  Seward  men,  that 
while  they  had  gained  but  eleven  votes,  the  Lincoln  men  had 
gained  seventy-nine.  When  the  third  ballot  was  ordered, 
the  excitement  reached  that  stage  of  intensity  when  it  shows 
itself  in  deep  feeling  rather  than  in  loud  commotion.  And 
as  the  ballot  proceeded  the  vote  of  each  State  was  awaited  in 
breathless  silence.     The  drift  of  the  voting  could    not    be 


312  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

doubted.  The  convention  became  almost  quiet  by  the  end  of 
the  balloting.  In  the  hush  of  expectation  and  uncertainty  of 
the  close  ballot  —  the  full  count  had  to  be  made  before  the  re- 
sult could  be  definitely  determined  —  the  convention  reached  its 
chmax.  Before  the  result  of  the  ballot  was  announced,  Chair- 
man Cartter  of  the  Ohio  delegation  was  on  the  floor  seeking 
recognition  from  the  chair.  He  announced  that  Ohio 
desired  to  change  four  votes  from  Chase  to  Lincoln.  The  bal- 
lot had  stood:  Seward  i8o,  Lincoln  231^,  which  made  the  re- 
quisite number  of  Lincoln  short  i|  votes,  hence  the  action  of 
Cartter,  insuring  the  nomination  of  Lincoln.  Amidst  wildest 
excitement  delegation  after  delegation  changed  to  Lincoln 
until  his  vote  reached  354,  which  was  121  more  than  the  num- 
ber required  to  nominate  him.  Evarts  was  given  the  floor, 
when  he  proposed  that  the  nomination  be  made  unanimous. 
It  was  seconded  by  Andrew  of  Massachusetts  and  was  carried 
in  a  storm.  Never  in  the  history  of  American  politics,  either 
before  or  since,  has  this  convention  been  equaled  in  its  quality 
and  quantity  of  enthusiasm.  It  touched  the  extreme  points; 
from  the  quietness  which  held  thousands  of  men  and  women 
in  that  silence,  disturbed  only  by  the  scratching  of  the  pen- 
cils in  the  hands  of  hundreds  computing  the  result  of  the  ballot, 
to  the  commotion  like  the  sweep  of  the  storm,  when  men  and 
women  seemed  for  the  time  to  forget  that  they  were  mere 
citizens  simply  beholding  the  representatives  of  a  portion  of 
the  people  selecting  from  their  peers  a  man  to  bear  their  stand- 
ard in  the  contest  for  control  of  the  nation's  policies. 

Hamlin  chosen  Vice-President.  The  Lincoln  portion  of  the 
convention  desired  the  Seward  men  to  name  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent, but  the  latter  declined  to  do  it.  Hannibal  Hamlin  was 
then  nominated  on  the  second  ballot,  having  received  367 
votes,  while  CM.  Clay  received  86  and  Hickman  13.  Before 
adjournment  the  convention  appointed  a  national  committee 
consisting  of  one  member  from  each  State,  to  take  charge  of 
the  campaign.     It  then  adjourned  with  cheers  for  the  ticket. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      313 

Lincoln's  election.     The  election  which    followed  was  no 

surprise  to  the  pohtical  observer.     The  unfortunate  situation 

of  the  National  Democracy,  which  grew  worse  as  the  election 

approached,  gave  small  hope  to  the  historic  party  of  Jefferson. 

On  the  other  hand,  Lincoln's  candidacy  grew  with  the  months. 

October  elections  told  with  certainty  the  popularity  of  the 

Repubhcan   cause   in   the   North.     All   the   doubtful   States 

favored  the  new  organization.     In  the  election  thirty-three 

States  took  part.  The  result  stood  in  the  electoral  college  as 

follows:  Lincoln,  180  votes;  Breckinridge,  72;   Bell,  39;  and 

Douglas,  12.     The   popular  vote  stood:  Lincoln,  1,866,452; 

Douglas,  1,375,157;  Breckinridge,  847,953;  and  Bell,  590,631. 

The  disparity  between  the  popular  vote,  on  the  one  hand,  and 

the  electoral  vote,  on  the  other,  is  the  result  of  the  electoral 

system  of  choosing  the  President.     Lincoln  received  less  than 

a  half-million  more  votes  than  Douglas,  but  his  electoral  vote 

was  fifteen  times  that  of  Douglas.     Douglas  received  over  a 

half-miUion  more  votes  than  Breckinridge,  while  the  latter 

received  just  six  times  the  electoral  vote.     While  Douglas 

received  more  than  double  the  popular  vote  given  to  Bell,  the 

latter  received  more  than  three  times  the  former's  vote  in  the 

electoral  college. 

Its  real  significance.  By  States,  Douglas  carried  Missouri 
alone,  and  three  of  the  seven  votes  of  New  Jersey.  Bell 
carried  three  States:  Virginia,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee. 
Breckinridge  carried  all  the  remaining  States  denominated 
Southern  States,  eleven  in  all.  Lincoln  carried  every  North- 
ern State  except  New  Jersey,  which  divided  her  vote,  giving 
three  to  Douglas  and  four  to  Lincoln.  Although  the  popular 
vote  is  conclusive  that  it  was  not  strictly  a  sectional  struggle, 
nevertheless,  this  selection  and  the  events  immediately  follow- 
ing it  produced  the  "solid  South"  and  almost  a  "united 
North."  For  a  half  century  this  party  alignment  has  more  or 
less  prevailed.  Recent  events  have  done  much  to  reheve 
sectional  bitterness. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN,  THE  GREAT  WAR  PRESmENT 

Early  career  of  Lincoln.  The  life  of  Abraham  Lincoln  will 
continue  to  be  one  of  the  chief  treasures  of  American  history. 
To  the  children  of  the  land,  it  has  the  interest  of  the  fairy 
tale;  to  the  ambitious  youth,  it  is  a  perpetual  spring  of  inspira- 
tion, and  to  the  matured  mind,  it  is  a  source  of  supreme  delight, 
born  of  an  appreciation  of  splendid  talents.  Of  all  that  long 
line  of  worthy  great  in  the  United  States,  Lincoln  can  rightly 
claim  the  primacy.  The  chasm  which  separated  his  beginning 
in  the  solitary  wastes  of  the  forests,  and  his  ending  in  the  White 
House,  seems  bottomless.  The  achievement  was  not  the  mere 
accident  of  good  fortune  but  it  had  its  basis  on  a  rational  foun- 
dation. The  sterner  obstacles  of  the  pioneer  splendidly  dis- 
ciphned  his  body  as  well  as  his  mind  for  the  reahties  of  hfe. 
His  tender  nature  which  put  him  in  sympathy  with  suffering 
of  all  kinds  was  native  to  him,  and  this  quality  received  a 
decided  growth  in  the  discipline  of  hardships,  entailed  upon  the 
family  upon  the  frontier.  This  duality  of  nature  throws  light 
upon  his  attitude  toward  the  institution  of  slavery.  The 
artificial  distinctions  which  erect  barriers  between  man  and 
man  under  the  law,  had  no  place  in  his  philosophy.  In  this 
respect  he  was  supremely  democratic. 

His  Democracy,  In  the  matter  of  equality  of  all  mankind 
in  the  race  of  hfe,  he  was  more  democratic  than  Jefferson.  He 
beheved  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  proclaimed  a 
truth  universal,  comprehending  all  mankind.     That  all  men 

314 


Abk^uiam  Lincoln 


315 


3i6  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

are  equal  in  their  right  to  eat  their  bread  in  the  sweat  of  the 
face,  was  true  not  because  the  Continental  Congress  said  so, 
but  because  it  was  written  in  the  consciences  of  men.  This 
principle  was  broad  enough  to  take  in  all  men  of  all  races. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  Jefferson,  in  his  conception  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  included  the  colored  race.  The 
evidence  would  point  otherwise,  owing  to  the  existence  of 
slavery,  an  institution  which  he  greatly  deplored.  In  this 
respect  Mr.  Lincoln  was  a  greater  Democrat  than  Jefferson. 

His  nature.  By  nature  Mr.  Lincoln  was  a  Democrat,  in 
the  sense  of  giving  to  all  men  a  square  deal  in  the  race  of  hfe. 
In  pontics  he  was  a  Whig,  in  the  sense  that  this  party  endorsed 
a  policy  of  constructive  statesmanship  in  the  development  of 
the  great  West  and  the  estabhshment  of  a  fiscal  agency  in  the 
form  of  a  National  Bank,  as  well  as  in  the  development  of  a 
system  of  revenue  which  he  joined  Clay  in  calling  the  "  Ameri- 
can system."  But  the  nation's  discovery  of  this  remarkable 
man  was  not  due  to  policy  or  to  his  advocacy  of  any  political 
theory.  His  active  Hfe  was  destined  to  be  spent  in  the  newer 
parts  of  the  country,  at  a  time  when  the  institution  of  slavery 
was  in  its  mighty  struggle  with  the  forces  of  freedom,  for  the 
control  of  the  vast  stretches  in  the  West.  No  man  of  public 
spirit  could  escape  the  confhct.  In  its  fury,  Lincoln  naturally 
identified  liimself  with  the  anti-slavery  element.  His  make- 
up pecuHarly  equipped  him  as  the  defender  of  the  rights  of  the 
lowly.  He  viewed  slavery  as  an  evil  to  be  tolerated  only 
because  the  situation  under  which  it  had  been  planted  denied 
interference. 

His  attitude  toward  slavery.  While  he  was  a  member  of 
the  State  legislature  the  friends  of  slavery  had  succeeded  in 
passing  resolutions  of  endorsement  of  the  institution.  Lin- 
coln entered  upon  the  Journals  his  protest  in  which  he  declared 
slavery  to  be  founded  upon  injustice  and  bad  policy.  However, 
he  beheved  the  abolition  agitation  tended  to  increase,  rather 
than  abate,  the  evil.     He  claimed  that  Congress  had  no  power 


ORGANIZATION    IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      317 

to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States,  but  that  it  could  control 
or  abohsh  it  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  However,  he  advised 
that  no  such  action  be  taken  except  upon  the  request  of  the 
people  of  the  District.  His  protest  recognized  the  existence  of 
sla\-ery  as  a  necessary  evil.  Three  years  later  in  a  public  ad- 
dress he  said:  ''Broken  by  it,  I,  too,  may  be;  bow  to  it,  I 
ne\-er  will.  The  probabihty  that  we  may  fall  in  the  struggle 
ought  not  to  deter  us  from  the  support  of  a  cause  we  beUeve 
to  be  just."  At  this  time  his  feehngs  against  slavery  were  well 
defined.     He  was  averse  to  the  methods  of  the  AboHtionist. 

Service  and  congress.     Up  to  the  time  he  became  a  member 
of  Congress  in  1846,  his  service  on  the  stump  was  in  great 
demand  from  the  Whigs.     He  had  been  a  student  of  the 
Texas  annexation  project  and  felt  that  the  defeat  of  Clay  was 
too  high  a  price  to  pay  for  that  territory.     He  opposed  the 
project  mainly  on  the  ground  that  it  would  involve  the  United 
States  in  a  war  with  Mexico.     He  also  reflected  the  wish  of 
his  constituency  on  the  question  of  hmiting  the  extension  of 
slaver}-.     His  support  was  given  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso.     He 
declared  afterward  that  he  had  voted  no  less  than  forty-two 
times  for  the  Proviso.     He  did  not  oppose  the  prosecution  of 
the  war  with  Mexico,  but  he  refused  to  vote  for  various  resolu- 
tions introduced  into  Congress  to  endorse  the  pohcy  of  Presi- 
dent Polk  in  inaugurating  the  war.     This  attitude  was  later 
arraigned  by  Senator  Douglas  as  evidence  of  a  lack  of  patriotic 
enthusiasm,  a  charge  which  can  be  explained  only  on  a  partizan 
basis.     His  political  affiliations  were  due  more  largely  to  eco- 
nomic policies  than  to  moral  issues  such  as  the  slave  issue.     In 
the  presidential  campaign  of  1848  he  chose  to  vote  for  a  Whig 
slave-holding  candidate    from   Louisiana,  rather   than  for  a 
Democratic    non-slave-holding    candidate    from    Michigan. 
However,  in  1849,  he  introduced  an  amendment  to  a  bill  pro- 
viding for  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of 
Columbia.     His  amendment  sought  to  prohibit  both  the  slave 
trade  and  slavery  in  the  District.     The  amendment  would 


3i8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

have  cut  off  further  importation  of  slaves  and  provided  for  the 
manumission  of  the  slaves  within  the  District  by  compensating 
the  owners  at  full  value.  It  further  provided  that  the  bill 
should  be  effective  only  when  ratified  by  the  people  of  the 
District. 

The  lawyer  again  becomes  a  politician.  On  the  fourth  of 
March,  1849,  he  retired  from  Congress  to  take  up  his  law 
practise,  having  previously  announced  his  determination  not 
to  become  a  candidate  to  succeed  himself.  His  practise 
absorbed  his  interest,  and  only  the  unfortunate  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  by  the  passage  of  Senator  Douglas's 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  in  the  name  of  popular  sovereignty 
which  had  such  peculiar  charm  for  its  author,  could  take  him 
from  the  court-room  to  the  stump.  The  imperious  manner  of 
Mr.  Douglas  upon  his  return  home  in  defense  of  his  popular 
sovereignty  pohcy  called  Lincoln  to  the  platform.  While  the 
whole  country  was  more  or  less  agitated  over  the  new  form  the 
slave  issue  had  taken,  IlHnois  was  the  real  battle-ground.  It 
was  in  that  State  that  the  author  of  the  popular  sovereignty 
theory  Hved.  He  was  the  representative  of  that  State  in  the 
United  States  Senate.  Then  the  State  itself  was  pecuHarly 
situated  with  reference  to  the  issue.  The  northern  counties 
were  radically  anti-slavery,  while  the  southern  counties  were 
radically  pro-slavery  in  sentiment.  The  sentiment  of  the 
central  counties  was  about  evenly  divided. 

On  the  "stump."  These  conditions  rendered  the  State  an 
ideal  battle-ground.  The  campaign  opened  in  Springfield,  in 
connection  with  the  State  fair.  Douglas  spoke  first.  The 
following  day  Lincoln  addressed  the  people.  It  is  said  that 
he  spoke  four  hours.  The  abihty  displayed  by  him  forced 
upon  Douglas  the  acknowledgment  of  an  opponent  worthy 
of  his  steel.  Lincoln's  speech  possessed  the  quahties  of  terse 
statement,  lucid  exposition  and  logical  arrangement,  which 
made  him  famous  in  the  next  decade.  Among  other  things  he 
said:  " I  hate  it  (the  attempt  to  spread  slavery)  because  of  the 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      319 

monstrous  injustice  of  slavery  itself.  I  hate  it  because  it 
deprives  our  Republican  example  of  its  just  influence  in  the 
world ;  enables  the  enemies  of  free  institutions  with  plausibility 
to  taunt  us  as  h\pocrites;  it  causes  the  real  friends  of  freedom 
to  doubt  our  sincerity;  and  especially  because  it  forces  so 
many  really  good  men  among  ourselves  into  an  open  war  with 
the  very  fundamental  principles  of  civil  liberty,  criticizing  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  insisting  that  there  is  no 
right  principle  of  action  except  self-interest."  He  declared 
that  the  doctrine  of  self-government  was  eternally  right,  but 
it  could  not  be  interpreted  narrowly.  He  said,  "When  the 
white  man  governs  himself,  that  is  self-government;  but  when 
he  governs  himself  and  also  another  man,  that  is  more  than 
self-government  —  that  is  despotism  .  .  .  What  I  do  say  is 
that  no  man  is  good  enough  to  govern  another  man  without 
that  other's  consent."  He  declared  that  slavery  was  founded 
on  principles  which  are  in  eternal  antagonism  with  justice, 
that  man  could  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise,  all  com- 
promises, the  Declaration  of  Independence,  but  he  could  not 
repeal  the  nature  of  man.  His  indictment  of  the  Douglas 
pohcy  was  at  once  terrific  and  overwhelming. 

His  candidacy  for  Federal  Senate.  Mr.  Lincoln's  remark- 
able ability  here  and  elsewhere  displayed  made  him  the  logical 
candidate  for  the  Senate,  a  position  which  he  greatly  desired. 
He  had  allowed  his  friends  to  run  him  for  the  legislature  in  the 
interest  of  an  anti-Nebraska  legislature,  and  consequently 
an  anti-slavery  United  States  senator.  This  position  he  re- 
signed soon  after  the  election,  to  be  free  to  accept  the  sena- 
torship;  but  in  the  dead-lock  Lincoln  induced  his  friends  to 
vote  for  Lyman  Trumbull.  This  magnanimity  on  the  part  of 
Lincoln  made  him  the  unanimous  candidate  in  1858  to  contest 
the  seat  of  Senator  Douglas.  It  was  the  speech  Mr.  Lincoln 
made  in  accepting  this  nomination,  on  the  17th  day  of  June, 
1858,  that  gave  him  the  wide  reputation  he  so  suddenly 
achieved.     Here  he  declared  that  Douglas  had  promised  to 


320  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

put  an  end  to  the  agitation  of  slavery  by  his  popular  sover- 
eignty scheme;  but  that  the  policy  had  failed  to  accomphsh  its 
end.  He  then  said,  "  In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  until  a 
crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  A  house  divided 
against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  beheve  that  this  government 
cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free.  I  do  not 
expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved;  I  do  not  expect  the  house 
to  fall;  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will 
become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of 
slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where 
the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  behef  that  it  is  in  the  course 
of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till 
it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new, 
North  as  well  as  South."  He  endeavored  to  prove  that  the 
recent  legislation  and  the  Dred  Scott  decision  suggested  a 
conspiracy  to  extend  slavery  into  the  free  territory;  that  the 
legitimate  outcome  of  the  national  policy  was  the  extension 
of  the  institution  into  the  free  States  as  well  as  into  free 
territory.  He  indicted  Douglas,  Taney,  Pierce  and  Buchanan 
as  the  chief  parties.  He  endeavored  to  show  that  the  lessons 
of  history  promised  success  to  the  opponents  of  wider  exten- 
sion of  the  slave  area. 

Debate  arranged.  In  July  Lincoln  sent  a  letter  to  Douglas 
which  served  as  a  challenge  to  discuss  the  issues  of  the  cam- 
paign on  the  same  platform  before  the  same  people.  Doug- 
las accepted  and  arrangements  were  made  for  some  joint 
debates  in  various  parts  of  the  State. 

Lincoln's  first  speech.  Mr.  Douglas  took  Mr.  Lincoln's 
acceptance  speech  for  the  basis  of  his  argument.  His  speech 
in  substance  was  not  different  from  what  he  had  said  at  his 
previous  meetings.  Mr.  Lincoln's  first  speech  was  determined 
by  the  trend  of  his  opponent's.  On  the  slavery  question  he 
said  his  first  inclination  would  be  to  colonize  the  slaves  in 
Liberia.  He  declared  it  both  impossible  and  unjust.  He  was 
not  sure  he  would  free  them  and  keep  them  as  underlings, 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      321 

as  that  might  not  improve  their  condition.  Personally  he 
would  not  hold  one  in  slavery.  He  said  his  f eeHngs  would  jiot 
admit  their  freedom  upon  a  basis  of  social  and  political  equal- 
ity. He  thought  a  system  of  gradual  emancipation  could  be 
adopted  by  the  South,  but  he  was  convinced  the  government 
could  not  interfere  with  it  in  the  States.  But  he  insisted  .that 
Congress  had  full  power  to  deal  as  it  liked  with  it  in  the  Terri- 
tories. On  the  question  of  social  and  poHtical  equahty,  which 
Douglas  attempted  to  fasten  upon  him,  he  said:  "Anything 
which  argues  me  into  his  idea  of  social  and  poHtical  equahty 
with  the  negro,  is  but  a  specious  and  fantastic  arrangement  of 
words,  by  which  man  can  prove  a  horse-chestnut  to  be  a  chest- 
nut horse."  While  he  freely  admitted  radical  differences  in 
the  races,  in  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  quahties,  he 
declared:  ''In  the  right  to  eat  the  bread,  without  the  leave 
of  anybody  else,  which  his  own  hand  earns,  he  is  my  equal, 
and  the  equal  of  Judge  Douglas,  and  the  equal  of  every  living  man.''' 
Mr.  Lincoln  quoted  Henry  Clay  as  once  saying  of  a  class  of 
men  who  would  stifle  all  impulses  to  ultimate  emancipation, 
that  they  must  go  back  to  the  era  of  our  independence  and 
muzzle  the  cannon  which  thunders  its  annual  joyous  return; 
they  must  blow  out  the  moral  Hghts  around  us;  they  must 
penetrate  the  human  soul  and  eradicate  there  the  love  of 
liberty;  and  then  and  not  until  then  could  they  perpetuate 
slavery  in  this  country.  He  offered  this  in  proof  of  his  con- 
tention that  slavery  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction. 
Later  in  the  debates  he  cited  evidence  that  at  the  time  of  the 
Federal  convention,  the  belief  was  wide-spread  that  slavery 
could  not  last  beyond  a  few  years.  Its  extinction  was  desired 
by  the  leaders  of  most  of  the  States,  as  manifested  in  their 
utterances  as  well  as  in  their  enactments  in  the  legislatures, 
their  various  conventions  and  Congress.  As  examples  of  the 
latter  he  cited  the  Ordinance  of  1787  and  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise which  secured  the  major  portion  of  the  country  to 
freedom. 


322  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

To  the  queries  asked  him  by  his  opponent,  he  replied  in  full 
exposition  of  his  position  on  the  sensitive  issue.  In  regard  to 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  which  was  the  immediate  cause  of 
frantic  agitation  in  the  North,  he  said  he  did  not  hesitate  to 
admit  that  under  the  Constitution  the  people  of  the  Southern 
States  were  entitled  to  the  enactment  of  such  a  measure.  He 
thought  it  could  be  done  without  so  great  offense  to  the  people 
of  the  North  by  omitting  some  of  the  objectionable  features, 
which  he  felt  should  be  done. 

Position  on  public  policy.  In  reference  to  the  question 
whether  he  would  favor  the  admission  of  any  more  slave 
States  into  the  Union  he  said:  "I  state  to  you  very  frankly 
that  I  would  be  exceedingly  sorry  to  be  put  in  a  position  of 
having  to  pass  upon  that  question.  I  should  be  exceedingly 
glad  to  know  that  there  would  never  be  another  slave  State 
admitted  into  the  Union;  but  I  must  add  that  if  slavery  shall 
be  kept  out  of  the  Territories  during  the  territorial  existence 
of  any  one  given  Territory,  and  then  the  people  shall,  having  a 
fair  chance  and  a  clear  field,  when  they  come  to  adopt  their 
constitution,  do  such  an  extraordinary  thing  as  to  adopt  a 
slave  constitution,  uninfluenced  by  the  actual  presence  of  the 
institution  among  them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if  we  own  the 
country,  but  to  admit  them  into  the  Union." 

On  abolition  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  In  regard  to  the 
abolition  in  the  District  of  Columbia  he  said:  "  In  relation  to 
that  I  have  my  mind  very  distinctly  made  up.  I  should  be 
exceedingly  glad  to  see  slavery  abohshed  in  the  District  of 
Columbia.  I  believe  that  Congress  possesses  the  power  to 
aboHsh  it.  Yet  as  a  member  of  Congress  I  should  not,  with  my 
present  views,  be  in  favor  of  endeavoring  to  abolish  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia,  unless  it  would  be  upon  these  con^ 
ditions:  first,  that  the  abolition  should  be  gradual;  second, 
that  it  should  be  on  a  vote  of  the  majority  of  the  qualified 
voters  in  the  District;  and  third,  that  compensation  should  be 
made  to  unwilhng  owners."     He  declared  upon  these  three 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IX  THE  UNITED   STATES      323 

conditions  he  would  be  glad,  in  the  language  of  Clay, "  to  sweep 
from  the  Capital  that  foul  blot  upon  our  nation." 

Power  of  Congress.  :\Ir.  Lincoln  made  himself  clear  upon 
the  issue.  He  felt  that  Congress  had  no  constitutional  power 
to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  already  existed. 
In  the  Territories  it  had  complete  control,  and  he  pronounced 
himself  unalterably  opposed  to  the  further  spread  of  the  insti- 
tution in  the  Territories.  In  the  District  of  Columbia  he 
fa\'ored  abohtion  upon  specified  grounds.  In  regard  to  the 
admission  of  new  States  as  slave  States,  he  was  frank  to  say  he 
would  not  fa\-or  it,  but  might  be  compelled  to  vote  for  such 
admission  upon  constitutional  requirements.  In  all  this  he 
displayed  an  eternal  warfare  against  slavery,  but  obedience 
to  legal  enactments. 

His  weakness.  The  point  of  weakness  in  his  position  in  the 
debates  was  his  attitude  toward  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  He 
frankly  acceded  to  the  decision  as  final  in  the  case  of  Dred 
Scott  but  as  frankly  denied  that  it  should  be  respected  as 
the  rule  governing  the  Territories.  While  he  admitted  that  the 
Court  substantially  said  to  the  slave-holder  that  he  could  take 
his  slave  into  new  territory,  and  hold  him  there,  he  insisted 
that  the  decision  was  not  reached  regularly.  It  was  made  in 
a  divided  court,  by  a  bare  majority,  and  the  majority  did  not 
quite  agree  in  the  reasons  for  so  deciding.  It  was  made  so 
that  the  avowed  supporters  disagreed  with  one  another  in  the 
meaning  of  it.  It  was  based  upon  a  mistaken  statement  of 
fact,  that  the  "right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and 
expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution."  From  these  reasons 
he  refused  to  be  governed  by  its  force  as  a  rule  of  political 
action.  He  declared  himself  as  follows:  "I  go  in  for  the  re- 
versal of  that  decision."  He  quoted  Jackson  who  claimed 
the  right  to  enforce  the  law  as  he  interpreted  it,  and  not 
as  some  one  else  interpreted  it  for  him.  He  also  intimated 
that  Congress  had  the  authority  to  reconstruct  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  cited  the  conduct  of  Senator  Douglas  whose  title 


324  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

to  judge  was  secured  in  the  State  by  such  a  reconstruction 
in  IlKnois. 

His  political  theory.  It  must  be  admitted  that  while  the 
people  could  reach  the  Judiciary  in  this  manner  and  could 
reverse  its  decrees,  it  would  be  a  source  of  danger  to  subject 
the  courts  in  times  of  great  excitement  to  the  caprice  of  a 
popular  majority.  Herein  Mr.  Lincoln  was  far  more  Jeffer- 
sonian  than  Hamiltonian.  Such  utterances  would  have  been 
pronounced  heresies  by  Webster.  Thus  far  in  theory  Lincoln 
was  Democratic,  although  he  did  not  vote  with  the  party  bear- 
ing that  name.  He  believed  in  State  rights  so  far  as  to  be 
exempted  from  interferences  by  Congress  with  their  domestic 
matters.  He  did  not  believe  in  the  principle  to  the  extent  of 
the  State's  interference  in  matters  of  general  concern.  On  the 
slavery  question,  which  overshadowed  all  others,  he  had  come 
to  stand  upon  a  well  defined  platform  of  restriction.  He 
demanded  that  slavery  be  placed  where  the  fathers  had  placed 
it  —  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  He  had  come  to  the 
point  where  he  pronounced  it  a  wrong  that  dared  not  be 
augmented. 

Specific  position  on  slavery.  In  his  last  address  with  Doug- 
las he  said:  "  That  (Is  slavery  right  or  wrong?)  is  the  issue 
which  shall  continue  in  this  country  when  these  poor  tongues 
of  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  shall  be  silent.  It  is  the  eternal 
struggle  between  these  two  principles  —  right  and  wrong  — 
throughout  the  world.  They  are  the  two  principles  that  have 
stood  face  to  face  from  the  beginning  of  time,  and  will  ever 
continue  to  struggle.  The  one  is  the  common  right  of  human- 
ity, the  other  the  divine  right  of  kings."  He  thus  forced  the 
leader  of  Democracy  into  the  embarrassing  position  of  being 
compelled  to  remain  silent,  or  offend  either  his  Southern  friends 
or  his  Northern,  or  perhaps  both.  He  had  drawn  the  lines  so 
sharply  that  an  answer  either  way  was  fatal  to  the  ambitions 
of  his  opponent.  The  position  had  driven  the  Democracy 
to  the  defensive. 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IX  THE   UXITED   STATES      325 

Campaign  continued.  Mr.  Lincoln  continued  tlie  fight  even 
after  he  had  been  defeated  for  the  Senate.  In  1859  he  made 
two  masterful  speeches  in  Ohio,  and  in  the  opening  of  i860, 
one  in  New  York.  The  latter  is  the  strongest  exposition  of  the 
issue  between  the  parties  of  that  time  now  extant.  In  theory 
it  was  democratic,  as  it  pleaded  for  equal  rights  under  the  law. 
The  new  RepubHcan  party  had  taken  its  stand  against  further 
extension  of  slavery,  in  accordance  with  the  views  expressed 
b}-  Lincoln.  After  his  New  York  address  he  was  looked  upon 
by  many  as  the  logical  candidate  for  the  presidency  on  the 
ticket  of  the  Republican  party  whose  principles  so  closely 
coincided  with  his  own.  Here,  then,  was  to  be  inaugurated  to 
the  presidency  a  man  whose  fundamental  principles  of  equal 
rights  to  all  were  democratic,  and  whose  success  was  achieved 
in  a  struggle  to  compel  recognition  of  those  rights  against  the 
Democratic  party.  He  had  never  been  a  Democrat  in  the 
sense  of  having  voted  with  the  party  of  that  name ;  his  affiha- 
tions  were  with  the  Whigs  down  to  his  campaign  with  Douglas 
in  1854.  L'pon  the  organisation  of  the  Republican  party,  he 
became  one  of  its  greatest  representatives,  later  its  greatest 
leader,  and  its  first  President.  Strangely  it  fell  to  him  to  make 
the  greatest  test  of  the  Hamiltonian  theory  and  the  Webste- 
rian  dogma  of  constitutional  supremacy,  against  State  Sov- 
ereignty and  its  corollary  Secession.  In  this  test  he  displayed 
no  scruples.  His  mind  easily  comprehended  the  needs  of  the 
governing  function  and  its  necessary  powers.  His  first  ofhcial 
utterance  revealed  this  fact.  His  inaugural  address  was  mild 
but  decisive.  It  was  a  clear  statement  upon  all  the  questions 
of  the  hour.  He  made  it  clear  that  he  had  no  intention  to 
interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States;  no  wish  to  do  so,  and  no 
constitutional  authority  if  he  had  such  inchnation.  He  wished 
it  understood  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  would  be  enforced 
so  long  as  it  was  on  the  statute  books,  but  he  took  a  decided 
l)osition  against  the  further  extension  of  slavery  into  the  newer 
regions  of  the  country. 


326  POLITICAL  THEORY   AND   PARTY 

His  idea  of  the  Union.  His  theory  of  the  Union  was 
expressed  as  follows:  "  I  hold  that,  in  contemplation  of  univer- 
sal law,  and  of  the  Constitution,  the  Union  of  these  States  is 
perpetual.  Perpetuity  is  imphed,  if  not  expressed,  in  the 
fundamentf^l  law  of  all  national  governments.  It  is  safe  to 
assert  that  no  government  proper  ever  had  a  provision  in  its 
organic  law  for  its  own  termination.  Continue  to  execute  all 
the  express  provisions  of  our  national  government,  and  the 
Union  will  endure  forever."  On  the  theory  of  Calhoun  that 
the  Constitution  is  a  compact,  a  mere  agreement,  Lincoln  asked 
to  know  how  such  a  contract  could  be  peaceably  set  aside 
without  the  consent  of  all.  "One  party  may  violate  it, 
break  it,  so  to  speak;  but  does  it  not  require  all  to  lawfully 
rescind  it?"  He  argued  historically  that  the  Union  could  not 
be  lawfully  disrupted.  He  declared  that  no  State  on  its  now 
motion  could  lawfully  get  out  of  the  Union;  that  all  ordinances 
to  that  effect  were  legally  void ;  and  that  acts  of  violence  in  any 
State  against  the  authority  of  the  United  States  were  insur- 
rectionary or  revolutionary.  He  then  announced  his  intention 
to  possess  the  property  and  places  belonging  to  the  United 
States,  and  to  collect  the  duties  and  imposts.  Beyond  what 
was  necessary  for  these  objects  there  would  be  no  invasion  of 
the  States. 

New  problems  involved  by  Civil  War.  The  attack  of  Fort 
Sumter  necessitated  action,  and  Lincoln  immediately  issued 
his  first  proclamation  calling  forth  the  militia  of  the  several 
States  to  the  number  of  75,000  to  protect  the  Capital  and  to 
enforce  the  laws  of  the  land.  From  this  moment  Mr.  Lincoln 
gave  his  best  thought  to  the  problem,  how  to  preserve  the 
Union.  From  the  slavery  question  he  turned  to  that  vastly 
more  important  one,  how  shall  the  Union  be  preserved  and 
the  government  perpetuated?  The  exigencies  of  war  com- 
pelled enlargement  of  the  executive  prerogative.  On  the  day 
of  the  fall  of  Sumter  he  issued  a  call  for  a  special  session  of 
Congress  to  meet  on  the  fourth  day  of  July.     In  a  special 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IX  THE   UXITED   STATES      327 

message  to  this  Congress  he  reviewed  the  events  which  led  to 
the  cah  for  troops.  He  said,  "They  have  forced  upon  the 
country  the  distinct  issue,  immediate  dissolution  or  blood." 
He  continued,  "It  presents  to  the  family  of  man  whether  a 
constitutional  republic  or  democracy  —  a  government  of  the 
people  by  the  same  people  —  can  or  cannot  maintain  its  terri- 
torial integrity  against  its  own  domestic  foes."  He  continued, 
"It  forces  us  to  ask,  Is  there  in  all  republics  this  inherent 
weakness?  Must  a  government  of  necessity  be  too  strong  for 
the  liberties  of  its  own  people,  or  too  weak  to  maintain  its 
own  existence?  " 

His  conception  of  executive  prerogative.  In  the  meantime 
the  President  suspended  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  His 
right  to  do  so  was  questioned  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a 
legislative  function.  He  maintained  that  it  was  an  executive 
function  and  the  defense  he  made  revealed  the  acute  mind  of 
the  President  under  a  new  crisis.  While  he  had  been  an 
apostle  of  liberty,  it  had  ever  been  such  liberty  as  well  regulated 
order  secured.  His  argument  against  State  Sovereignty 
reached  as  high  rank  as  that  of  Webster.  "The  States  have 
their  status  in  the  Union,  and  they  have  no  other  legal  status. 
If  they  break  from  this,  they  can  do  so  only  against  law,  and 
by  revolution.  The  Union  and  not  themselves  procured  their 
independence  and  their  Hberty.  .  .  .  The  Union  is  older  than 
any  of  the  States,  and  in  fact  it  created  them  as  States. 
Originally  some  dependent  colonies  made  the  Union,  and 
in  turn,  the  Union  threw  off  their  dependence  for  them  and 
made  them  States,  such  as  they  are."  He  argued  that  while 
each  State  has  powers  and  rights  reserved  to  it,  these  powers 
and  rights  did  not  include  the  power  to  destroy  the  Union.  In 
combating  Secession  as  a  constitutional  right,  he  argued  the 
injustice  of  holding  the  national  government  for  the  debts 
contracted  on  behalf  of  the  States.  He  cited  the  cases  of 
new  States,  as  Florida  and  Texas,  the  possession  of  which 
entailed    a   great    outlay.     Justice    could    not   permit    these 


328  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

States,  within  fifteen  years  from  the  time  they  had  been  ad- 
mitted at  a  great  expenditure,  to  withdraw  and  avoid  further 
burdens.  If  one  State  may  secede,  others  may  secede.  Repu- 
diation of  obhgations  is  the  legitimate  outcome  of  such  a  doc- 
trine. He  insisted  that  the  doctrine  of  Secession  rendered 
self-government  impossible,  as  it  substituted  anarchy  for 
government. 

The  force  of  his  oath.  The  exigencies  of  the  situation  com- 
pelled a  broad  construction.  To  the  numerous  good  men  in 
the  North  who  preferred  peaceful  Secession  to  war,  Mr.  Lin- 
coln replied  that  he  could  not  maintain  his  oath  to  preserve 
the  Constitution,  if  he  permitted  the  States  to  go.  As  to  his 
authority  to  employ  the  necessary  power  in  a  constitutional 
way  to  enforce  the  laws,  he  had  no  doubt.  To  the  many  who 
protested  that  he  had  no  power  to  coerce  a  State  he  replied 
that  the  Constitution  guarantees  to  every  State  a  Republican 
form  of  government.  But  if  a  State  may  lawfully  go  out  of  the 
Union  it  may  certainly  discard  this  form  "  so  that  to  prevent 
its  going  out  is  an  indispensable  means  to  the  end  of  main- 
taining the  guaranty  mentioned;  and  when  an  end  is  lawful 
and  obligatory,  the  indispensable  means  to  it  are  also  law- 
ful and  obligatory."  This  broad  construction  was  employed 
by  Hamilton  in  his  argument  against  inserting  a  bill  of  rights 
in  the  Constitution.  It  was  also  employed  by  ]\Iarshall  in  the 
McCulloch  versus  Maryland  case.  It  was  a  rule  of  inter- 
pretation of  Webster,  and  since  the  war  it  has  become  the  law 
of  constitutional  interpretation  of  the  Federal  courts. 

His  message  on  slavery.  The  persistence  with  which  the 
Southern  Confederacy  prosecuted  the  war  was  a  constant 
surprise  to  the  Northern  leaders.  Mr.  Lincoln,  recognizing 
this  persistence  and  the  attachment  of  the  South  to  her  insti- 
tution of  slavery,  thought  to  persuade  the  disaffected  States 
that  their  persistence  would  inevitably  involve  slavery  and 
result  in  its  ultimate  destruction.  On  the  6th  of  March,  1862, 
he  recommended    to  Congress  ''that  the   United   States,  in 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      329 

order  to  co-operate  with  any  State  which  may  adopt  gradual 
aboHtion  of  slavery,  give  to  such  State  pecuniary  aid,  to  be 
used  by  such  State,  in  its  discretion,  to  compensate  it  for  the 
inconvenience,  public  and  private,  produced  by  such  cnange 
of  system."     This  resolution  passed  both  the  House  and  the 
Senate.     As  its  effectiveness  depended   upon   the  Southern 
States  it  did  not  avail  anything.     It  still  indicated  an  intention 
on  the  part  of  the  national  government  not  to  interfere  with 
slavery  within  the  States.     On  the  gth  of  the  following  May, 
General   Hunter   having  previously   proclaimed   all   negroes 
in  Georgia,  Florida  and  South  Carolina  free,  the  President 
refused  to  confirm  the  order,  reserving  to  himself  authority 
in  such  matters.     He  referred  to  the  former  resolution  recom- 
mending gradual  emancipation  on  a  compensation  basis  and 
appealed  to  the  people  to  calmly  consider  the  resolution.     He 
closed  with  a  plea  that  the  South  embrace  the  opportunity, 
that  the  future  may  not  have  to  lament  that  it  was  neglected. 
War  inconsistent  with  continuance  of  slavery.     Mr.  Lin- 
coln's  penetrating   judgment    clearly   discerned    the   incom- 
patibility of  a  War  of  Rebellion  and  a  continuance  of  the 
institution  of  slavery.    All  the  forces  in  opposition  to  Secession 
would  naturally  crystallize  against  the  peculiar  institution. 
He  perceived  this  situation.     To  avoid  the  inevitable  loss  to 
the  border  slave  States  which  remained  loyal  to  the  Union,  and 
to  the  loyal  men  in  the  States  which  had  seceded,  he  urgently 
requested  them  to  consider  the  wisdom  of  accepting  the  grad- 
ual emancipation  policy.     The  reticence  of  the  States  in  inter- 
est caused  the  bill  to  sleep  in  the  committee's  possession.     On 
the  1 2th  of  July,  1862,  the  President  signed  a  bill  prescribing 
as  a  penalty  for  persons  guilty  of  treason,  the  confiscation  of 
their  slaves.   The  same  law  authorized  the  President  to  employ 
persons  of  African  descent  to  aid  in  the  suppression  of  the 
Rebellion  in  the  way  his  discretion  might  suggest.    The  broad 
construction  of  the  Constitution  entailed  upon  the  Executive 
in  the  prosecution  of    the    war,  was    freely   employed.     He 


330  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

appointed  military  governors  for  the  border  States  with  in- 
structions to  protect  the  loyal  persons  within  the  States,  and 
recognize  them  only  as  entitled  to  a  voice  in  the  affairs  of  the 
State. 

Emancipation  sentiment  in  the  North.  With  the  progress 
of  the  war,  great  clamor  arose  in  the  loyal  portion  of  the  nation 
for  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves.  It  was  readily  conceded 
that  slavery  was  the  prime  cause  of  the  war,  and  many  argued 
that  to  tolerate  the  evil  in  the  face  of  an  insurrection  con- 
ceived in  its  perpetuation,  was  tempting  Providence.  Mr. 
Lincoln  had  been  given  the  power  to  free  the  slaves  of  all  who 
were  engaged  in  rebellion.  The  impatience  with  his  tardiness 
to  deal  summarily  with  the  subject  in  accordance  with  his 
clearly  defined  authority,  called  out  severe  criticism  from 
certain  quarters.  The  President's  position  was  set  forth  in 
his  reply  to  Horace  Greeley's  criticism,  published  in  the  New 
York  Tribune  under  date  of  August  19,  1862.  He  said: 
"As  to  the  policy  I  seem  to  be  pursuing,  as  you  say,  I  have 
not  meant  to  leave  any  one  in  doubt.  I  would  save  the  Union. 
I  would  save  it  in  the  shortest  way  under  the  Constitution. 
The  sooner  the  national  authority  can  be  restored,  the  nearer 
the  Union  will  be  the  Union  as  it  was.  If  there  be  those  who 
would  not  save  the  Union  unless  they  could  at  the  same  time 
save  slavery,  I  do  not  agree  with  them.  If  there  be  those  who 
would  not  save  the  Union  unless  they  could  at  the  same  time 
destroy  slavery,  I  do  not  agree  with  them.  My  paramount 
object  is  to  save  the  Union,  and  not  either  to  save  or  destroy 
slavery.  If  I  could  save  the  Union  without  freeing  any  slave 
I  would  do  it.  If  I  could  save  it  by  freeing  all  the  slaves  I 
would  do  it,  and  if  I  could  do  it  by  freeing  some  and  leaving 
others  alone,  I  would  also  do  that.  What  I  do  about  slavery 
and  the  colored  race,  I  do  because  I  believe  it  helps  to  save  the 
Union;  and  what  I  forbear,  I  forbear  because  I  do  not  believe 
it  helps  to  save  the  Union.  I  shall  do  less  whenever  I  believe 
that  what  I  am  doing  hurts  the  cause,  and  I  shall  do  more 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      331 

whenever  I  believe  doing  more  will  help  the  cause.  I  shall 
try  to  correct  errors  when  shown  to  be  errors  and  I  shall  adopt 
new  views  so  fast  as  they  shall  appear  to  be  true  views.  I  have 
here  stated  my  purpose  according  to  my  views  of  ofhcial  duty, 
and  I  intend  no  modification  of  my  oft-expressed  personal 
wish,  that  all  men  everywhere  could  be  free."  This  reply  was 
conclusive  as  to  the  President's  attitude  in  respect  to  slavery. 
In  reply  to  a  deputation  of  ministers  from  all  the  churches 
of  Chicago,  praying  for  emancipation,  among  other  things  he 
said:  "What  good  would  a  proclamation  of  emancipation 
from  me  do,  especially  as  we  are  now  situated?  I  do  not  want 
to  issue  a  document  that  the  whole  world  will  see  must  neces- 
sarily be  inoperative,  like  the  Pope's  bull  against  the  comet. 
Would  my  word  free  the  slaves  when  I  cannot  even  enforce 
the  Constitution  in  the  rebel  States?  .  .  .  Understand,  I 
raise  no  objections  against  it  on  legal  or  constitutional  grounds, 
for,  as  Commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy,  in  time  of 
war  I  suppose  I  have  a  right  to  take  any  measure  which  may 
best  subdue  the  enemy."  He  admitted  that  slavery  was  at 
the  root  of  the  war,  that  he  had  authority  under  the  Constitu- 
tion to  deal  with  it,  that  his  own  incHnations  were  toward 
freedom  for  all  men,  but  "constitutional  government  is  at 
stake."  He  continued,  "Whatever  shall  appear  to  be  God's 
will  I  will  do."  This  was  said  on  the  13th  day  of  September. 
Emancipation  as  a  war  measure.  On  the  2 2d  his  famous 
Emancipation  Proclamation  was  announced.  This  decree 
gave  notice  to  the  States  in  rebelHon  that  all  slaves  held  witliin 
the  States  or  parts  of  the  States  in  rebellion,  on  the  first  day  of 
January,  1863,  should  be  free.  It  also  informed  the  slave  States 
not  in  rebelHon  that  the  Executive  favored  compensation  to  all 
holders  of  slaves  therein  for  the  emancipation  of  their  slaves. 
On  the  first  of  January,  1863,  the  President  issued  his  final 
proclamation,  emancipating  the  slaves  in  the  rebellious  States 
so  far  as  it  could  be  done  by  Executive  decree.  Two  years 
later  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  abohshed  slavery 


332  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

throughout  the  land.  Mr.  Lincoln  is  justly  styled  the  great 
Emancipator;  however,  it  should  be  understood  that  this 
title  is  an  incidental  one.  While  he  was  the  nation's  greatest 
representative  of  equal  rights  to  all  and  special  privileges  to 
none,  in  a  philosophy  so  broad  that  it  comprehended  men  of  all 
color,  yet  this  title  was  achieved  by  an  act  stimulated  by  the 
belief  that  the  act  would  be  conducive  to  the  preservation  of 
the  Union.  This  conviction  was  due  to  at  least  two  causes: 
(i)  his  attachment  to  the  Union  and  his  belief  that  in  its 
preservation  were  the  destinies  of  a  great  part  of  the  human 
race;  and  (2)  his  respect  for  his  oath  which  he  had  taken  to 
preserve  the  Union.  These  two  considerations  moved  him  to 
emancipate  the  slaves  on  the  basis  of  a  war  measure. 

Democratic  opposition  to  extension  of  executive  pre- 
rogatives. The  exigencies  of  a  Civil  War  necessitated  the 
exercise  of  regal  power.  The  extension  of  the  executive  func- 
tion was  imperative.  The  new  relations  created  by  the  war 
demanded  new  appHcations.  The  vigorous  prosecution  of  the 
war  necessitated  frequent  infringement  upon  personal  liberties. 
Frequent  arrests  were  made,  such  as  that  of  Merryman  of 
Baltimore  and  Vallandigham  of  Ohio,  who  were  dealt  with 
summarily  and  imprisoned.  These  arrests  were  heralded  as 
open  violations  of  the  Constitution.  Also  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  was  suspended  by  executive  decree,  an  act  inflaming 
many  persons  who  felt  that  the  President  was  approaching 
despotism.  The  enlarged  authority  given  into  the  hands  of 
army  officers  was  held  up  as  evidence  of  despotism.  This 
opposition  was  voiced  in  the  resolutions  adopted  in  Chicago, 
in  August,  1864,  by  the  Democratic  party  which  had  met  in 
national  convention  to  select  a  candidate  in  opposition  to  Mr. 
Lincoln.  It  was  declared  that,  "Under  the  pretense  of  a 
military  necessity,  or  war  power  higher  than  the  Constitution, 
the  Constitution  itself  has  been  disregarded  in  every  part,  and 
pubhc  Hberty  and  private  right  alike  trodden  down.  .  .  .  And 
they  (the  Democratic  party)  hereby  declare  that  they  consider 


i 


ORGANIZATION  IN   THE  UNITED   STATES     '333 

that  the  administrative  usurpation  of  extraordinary  and  dan- 
gerous powers  not  granted  by  the  Constitution,  the  subver- 
sion of  the  civil  by  the  mihtary  law  in  States  not  in  insurrection, 
the  arbitrary  military  arrest,  imprisonment,  trial,  and  sen- 
tence of  American  citizens  in  States  where  civil  law  exists  in 
full  force,  the  suppression  of  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the 
press,  the  denial  of  the  right  of  asylum,  the  open  and  avowed 
disregard  of  State  rights,  —  are  calculated  to  prevent  a  resto- 
ration of  the  Union  and  the  perpetuation  of  a  government 
deriving  its  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed." 
In  the  prosecution  of  the  war  the  President  professed  to  act 
within  his  constitutional  bounds.  His  many  utterances  reveal 
his  concern  on  this  point.  He  admitted  the  exercise  of 
powers  was  necessarily  broader  in  times  of  war  than  in  times 
of  peace,  but  he  insisted  that  what  was  done  was  warranted  by 
the  Constitution  as  war  measures. 

Hamiltonian  interpretation  to  secure  Jeffersonian  liberty. 
Thus,  while  he  represents  the  highest  reach  in  the  claims  of 
hberty,  and  as  such  is  specifically  Jeffersonian  in  that  of  which 
JefTerson  stood  as  the  great  exponent,  yet  he  extended  the 
executive  function  farther  than  any  man  who  has  occupied 
the  presidency.  In  this  extension  he  claimed  to  be  within 
constitutional  Hmits.  In  this  way  he  stands  in  actual  accom- 
phshment  as  the  greatest  representative  of  authority  in  govern- 
ment, and  is  distinctively  Hamiltonian.  It  was  left  to  him  to 
preside  at  the  head  of  the  government  at  the  time  when  the 
final  test  was  to  be  made  in  poHtical  theory.  Slavery  fur- 
nished the  issue.  The  election  of  Lincoln  on  a  platform 
pledged  to  confine  it  where  it  then  existed,  was  the  occasion. 
Eleven  slave  States  professing  to  stand  upon  the  principles  of 
State  Sovereignty,  which  they  declared  were  Jeffersonian,  and 
which  had  been  ably  defended  by  Calhoun,  decided  to  make 
the  test.  As  a  corollary  of  this  dogma  of  State  rights  they 
pretended  to  exercise  their  constitutional  right  to  withdraw 
from  the  Union.     All  this  was  done  in  the  interest  of  non- 


334  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

interference  with  the  institution  of  slavery.  Thus  they 
demanded  the  right  to  exercise  their  hberty  in  perpetually 
denying  it  to  the  blacks.  Here  is  where  the  political  theory 
of  the  Southern  leaders  broke  down.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Repubhcan  party  in  its  efforts  to  limit  slavery,  believing  that 
it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  extended  the 
functions  of  government  to  the  prosecution  of  the  war  to  a 
successful  end.  This  called  for  the  broadest  interpretation 
of  the  Constitution  as  announced  by  Hamilton,  Marshall, 
Webster,  Chase,  and  to-day  by  the  entire  Judiciary  of  the 
Federal  government. 

The  normal  distinction  of  the  parties.  This  position  of 
broad,  as  against  strict,  construction  made  a  rational  issue 
between  the  Republicans  and  the  Democrats.  The  latter  as 
the  opposition  party  necessarily  became  Strict  Construction- 
ists, as  against  the  party  in  power  which  as  naturally  became 
the  Broad  Constructionists.  The  Republican  party  therefore 
became  constructive,  while  the  Democratic  party  for  the  same 
reason  became  negative.  The  remedy  for  the  liberal  con- 
struction of  the  Constitution  is  invariably  the  dogma  of  State 
rights;  hence  the  attitude  of  the  Democratic  party  upon  that 
question.  The  necessary  function  of  the  party  in  power,  the 
liberal  constructionist,  is  achievement,  authority  to  accom- 
plish; hence  the  attitude  of  the  Repubhcan  party  toward 
constitutional  supremacy.  The  Repubhcan  party  repre- 
sented the  Hamiltonian  theory,  and  was  therefore  the  suc- 
cessor of  the  Whig  party,  which  had  succeeded  the  FederaHst 
party.  The  Democratic  party  still  represented  the  Jeffer- 
sonian  theory,  which  could  claim,  with  slight  deflections,  con- 
sistency much  of  the  time  since  the  days  of  its  founder,  with 
the  exception  that  when  it  was  in  power  it  employed  the  broad 
construction  view  of  the  Constitution,  an  example  set  by 
Jefferson  himself  from  1801  to  1809. 

Lesson  of  the  Civil  War.  The  prosecution  of  the  war  to  a 
successful  end  has  been  regarded,  and  rightly  so,  as  one  of  the 


ORGANIZATION   IN   THE   UNITED   STATES      335 

most  stupendous  facts  in  the  history  of  the  world.  It  was 
a  test  of  Republican  government.  The  wisest  thinkers  and 
closest  observers  of  political  science  in  Europe  confidently 
predicted  the  failure  of  the  American  attempt  at  self-govern- 
ment, and  when  the  nation  was  to  pass  into  the  fires  of  civil 
war,  they  pointed  to"  it  as  the  fulfilment  of  their  prediction. 
The  contention  of  the  Southern  States  appealed  to  many 
people  in  Europe  as  just.  The  exposition  of  the  causes  of  the 
war  indicated  that  the  dispute,  aside  from  the  slavery  question, 
was  a  mere  difference  of  opinion  upon  the  Constitution.  To 
many  this  difference  was  too  slight  to  justify  a  war  to  decide 
it.  In  the  midst  of  the  country  many  leading  men  wished  the 
issue  to  be  peaceful  dissolution.  Some  believed  the  slave 
States  could  govern  themselves  better,  and  that  the  nation 
would  be  better  off  without  them.  Much  pressure  was 
exerted  to  induce  Mr.  Lincoln  to  avoid  the  horrors  of  war  by 
allowing  the  States  to  go  in  peace  on  the  ground  that  there 
was  no  constitutional  authority  to  suppress  an  insurrectionary 
State.  To  all  such  representations  Mr.  Lincoln  had  but  one 
answer.  His  oath  could  not  be  respected  by  allowing  dis- 
affected States  to  dissolve  the  Union.  He  beheved  the  preser- 
vation of  the  Union  as  it  was  before  the  war  was  fraught  with 
countless  blessings,  and  that  its  dissolution  would  be  the 
nightmare  of  the  nation.  To  no  other  man  did  dissolution 
appear  in  such  appalling  form.  To  the  perpetuity  of  the 
"government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the  people/' 
he  gave  his  all.  No  constitutional  scruples  deterred  him  in 
the  furtherance  of  this  cause. 

Lincoln's  fitness  for  the  head  of  the  nation.  Abraham 
Lincoln  was  admirably  fitted  by  nature  to  guide  the  nation 
in  its  conflict.  His  rare  talents  commanded  the  respect  of  the 
highest,  and  his  kind  heart  won  the  support  of  the  lowest.  His 
remarkable  reach  in  matters  of  statecraft  was  an  increasing 
surprise  to  the  people  of  two  continents.  His  masterful  man- 
ner of  conciHation  in  which  he  brought  seemingly  irrecon- 


336  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

cilable  elements  together,  without  loss  to  them  of  either 
dignity  or  stability,  was  one  of  the  results  of  his  enduring 
quahties  of  mind.  His  magnanimity  enabled  him  to  receive 
the  severest  criticism  unruffled,  if  the  criticism  were  backed 
by  reasons,  and  thank  the  critic  for  it.  His  balance  of  mind 
enabled  him  to  plead  for  the  emancipation  of  the  negro,  but 
to  stay  the  necessary  decree  until  the  public  mind  had  reached 
the  proper  stage  of  moral  conviction.  His  penetrating  genius 
enabled  him  to  deal  with  the  multiplied  complications  entailed 
by  civil  war,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  win  respect  from  those  who 
differed  from  him.  His  candor  was  the  connecting  link  be- 
tween him  and  the  people  at  large.  Although  he  was  without 
the  glamour  of  battle  scars  and  was  in  the  public  eye  but  for  a 
short  time,  no  man  since  Jackson  could  boast  of  such  a  per- 
sonal following.  His  abiding  faith  in  the  people  was  one  of  his 
cardinal  qualities  of  strength.  Abraham  Lincoln  will  be 
remembered  as  the  Emancipator,  and  rightly  so.  But  when 
measured  by  the  standard  of  great  works,  he  will  be  remem- 
bered as  the  great  War  President,  under  whom  the  nation 
successfully  emerged  from  Civil  War,  the  result  of  which 
decided  against  the  right  of  Secession.  In  the  light  of  history, 
the  Preserver  of  the  Union  is  perhaps  the  proudest  title  that 
could  be  borne  by  an  American. 


I 


CHAPTER  XVII 
EFFECT  OF  CIVIL  WAR  ON  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

Effect  of  the  war.  The  partizan  contest  of  1861  revealed 
great  confusion  in  party  organization.  The  all-absorbing 
slavery  question  destroyed  old  party  affihations,  and  speedily 
tended  to  mere  sectional  strife.  The  fears  of  Washington  that 
party  strife  might  degenerate  into  sectional  jealousies  were 
about  to  be  realized.  The  old  Whig  party,  although  Hamil- 
tonian  in  theory,  always  drew  support  equally  from  all  parts 
of  the  country. 

The  Whig,  a  national  party.  In  1832,  in  its  first  presidential 
campaign,  it  carried  five  States:  Kentucky  and  Maryland  from 
the  slave  section,  and  Massachusetts,  Connecticut  and  Rhode 
Island  from  the  free  section.  In  1836  it  carried  ten  States 
equally  divided  between  the  sections:  Massachusetts,  New 
Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  Ohio  and  Indiana  in  the  North,  and 
Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Maryland,  South  Carolina  and  Georgia 
in  the  South.  When  Harrison  was  elected  in  1840  he  received 
the  votes  of  eleven  States  from  the  North,  and  seven  States 
from  the  South.  In  1844,  when  Clay  was  defeated  by  Polk, 
the  Whig  party  carried  eleven  States :  five  from  the  South  and 
six  from  the  North.  In  1848,  when  General  Taylor  was  elected, 
he  carried  fifteen  States:  eight  from  the  South  and  seven  from 
the  North.  In  1852  General  Scott,  the  Whig  candidate, 
carried  but  four  States:  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  from  the 
South,  and  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  from  the 
North.     From  the  first  campaign  of  the  old  Whig  party  in 

337 


338  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

1832  to  its  last  in  1852  (it  never  carried  a  State  after  the  latter 
date)  it  drew  its  strength  from  all  sections.  The  new  Repub- 
lican party,  responding  to  the  call  of  the  moral  sense  of  the 
nation  against  the  extension  of  slavery,  took  on  at  once  a 
sectional  character.  In  view  of  the  issue  involved  this  ten- 
dency was  inevitable.  Upon  this  basis  Douglas  made  his 
vahant  fight  against  Lincoln  in  1858.  He  strenuously  de- 
claimed against  the  dangers  which  Washington  feared. 

Slavery  distinctly  sectional.  The  new  party  rapidly 
absorbed  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  the  country,  which 
resulted  in  the  unification  of  the  elements  opposed  to  the  fur- 
ther spread  of  slavery.  This  condition  naturally  made  an 
issue  between  the  slave  and  the  free  States.  It  foreshadowed 
that  later  condition  deplored  by  all  good  citizens,  the  "sohd 
South  "  against  the  "  united  North."  The  dominant  element  in 
the  slave  States  was  Democratic,  which  claimed  the  right  of 
constitutional  protection  to  slavery.  There  were  also  numer- 
ous Whigs  in  the  slave  States  whose  economic  views  differed 
from  those  of  their  Democratic  neighbors  but  whose  local 
pride  and  interest  caused  them  to  unite  with  the  dominant 
clement  in  the  fight.  There  were  also  in  those  States  many 
American  party  men  whose  origin  was  a  revolt  against  certain 
tendencies  of  the  Democratic  party,  but  who,  on  the  sensitive 
question  of  slavery,  overcame  their  traditional  opposition  and 
joined  the  Democratic  forces  in  the  slave  States.  In  the 
North  there  was  a  like  confusion.  There  were  a  few  Whigs 
and  Americans  who  refused  to  unite  with  the  dominant  anti- 
slavery  organization,  but  they  were  comparatively  few. 

Sectionalism  of  1856.  In  the  presidential  campaign  of  1856 
the  first  evidence  of  sectionalism  became  manifest.  The 
Democratic  party  carried  eighteen  States,  including  every 
slave  State  except  Maryland.  That  State  was  carried  by  the 
American  in  combination  with  the  Whig  party.  The  Demo- 
cratic party  also  carried  five  Northern  States:  New  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  Indiana,  Illinois  and  Cahfornia.     It  received 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      339 

a  popular  vote  of  1,838,169,  of  which  621,879  came  from  the 
slave  States.  The  same  States  gave  Fillmore,  the  American 
candidate,  479,892  votes.  The  same  States  gave  to  Fremont' 
the  Republican  candidate,  only  1,194  votes.  He  received  not 
a  single  vote  from  any  one  of  the  eleven  States  which  after- 
ward joined  the  Southern  Confederacy.  On  the  other  hand 
Fremont  carried  eleven  States,  all  from  the  North.  He 
received  a  popular  vote  of  1,341,264,  all  of  which,  except  the 
1,194  votes  before  mentioned  as  coming  from  the  slave  States, 
came  from  the  free  States.  The  vote  shows  that  the  North 
and  South  cast  about  the  same  number  of  votes  for  Fillmore, 
who  represented  the  conservative  element  opposed  to  the 
agitation  of  the  slavery  question.  But  upon  the  main  issue 
the  South  went  sohd  for  its  interests,  while  the  North  divided 
between  Buchanan  and  Fremont,  giving  the  latter  120,000 
more  votes  than  the  former. 

In  i860.  In  i860  the  conservative  element  fell  short  about 
300,000  votes  in  the  popular  count,  but  it  carried  three  South- 
ern States:  Virginia,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  The  division 
in  the  Democratic  party,  dividing  the  vote  between  two  can- 
didates, represented  a  sectional  division.  The  North  gave 
Breckinridge  274,122  votes,  while  the  South  gave  to  Douglas 
163,375  votes.  The  South  gave  Breckinridge  573,831  votes, 
while  the  North  gave  Douglas  1,211,782  votes.  On  the  other 
hand  the  South  gave  Lincoln  26,440  votes,  of  which  17,028 
came  from  Missouri,  while  the  North  gave  him  1,840,012. 

In  1864.  In  the  presidential  contest  of  1864,  in  the  midst 
of  the  war,  only  twenty-five  States  participated.  The  eleven 
seceding  States  took  no  part.  Lincoln  carried  all  the  States 
participating  except  three:  Kentucky,  Delaware  and  New 
Jersey.  In  1868,  under  the  Reconstruction  regime,  all  the 
States  participated  except  Virginia,  Georgia  and  Louisiana, 
which  had  not  then  accepted  the  conditions  of  Reconstruction 
laid  down  by  Congress.  Grant  carried  all  the  States  but  eight, 
including    Florida,    Alabama,    Arkansas,    Tennessee,    South 


340  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Carolina,  North  Carolina  and  Missouri.  Seymour  carried 
eight  States,  including  Oregon,  New  York  and  New  Jersey. 
The  other  five  carried  by  him  were  States  that  had  been  slave 
States. 

Since  the  war.  In  1872  General  Grant  received  the  major- 
ity vote  of  all  the  States  except  eight.  The  States  carried  by 
him  included  Mississippi,  Alabama,  Florida,  South  Carohna, 
North  Carohna,  Virginia  and  Delaware.  Greeley  having  died 
before  the  meeting  of  the  electors,  the  Democratic  electors 
scattered  their  votes.  By  1876  the  Democratic  party  had 
secured  control  of  most  of  the  States  which  had  seceded  and 
which  under  the  Reconstruction  regime  had  given  most  of  their 
votes  to  the  RepubHcan  party.  In  the  latter  year  the  Demo- 
cratic party  clearly  carried  all  the  States  which  had  comprised 
the  Confederacy,  except  South  Carohna,  Florida  and  Louisiana. 
In  these  States  there  arose  a  dispute  which  was  afterward 
settled  by  the  Joint  Electoral  Commission  in  favor  of  the 
Republican  candidate.  From  that  date  down  to  the  present 
time  (1906)  the  South  has  held  soHd  for  the  Democratic  party, 
except  in  the  Silver  campaign  of  1896,  when  Delaware,  Mary- 
land and  Kentucky  went  for  the  Repubhcan  candidate,  and  in 
1900  when  Delaware  and  Maryland  again  went  Repubhcan. 

State  rights  in  the  South.  While  the  South  had  ever  been 
the  seat  of  the  State  rights  theory,  its  situation  in  relation  to 
the  slave  issue  augmented  the  importance  of  its  recognition 
of  that  theory.  While  the  cause  of  the  war  was  substantially 
in  the  status  of  the  slave,  its  real  cause  was  in  the  question 
whether  or  not  a  State  could  secede.  The  question  became 
organic  at  once.  The  traditions  of  the  Democratic  party 
naturally  alUed  it  with  the  State  rights  theory  of  the  South, 
but  the  great  bulk  of  the  party  refused  to  recognize  the  theory 
to  the  extent  of  the  right  of  a  State  to  withdraw  from  the 
Union,  as  claimed  by  the  radicals  of  the  South. 

Against  this  extreme  theory  the  great  bulk  of  Northern 
Democrats  offered  resistance  upon  the  field,  while,  on  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      341 

other  hand,  they  declined  to  support  many  of  the  poHcies  of 
the  RepubKcan  party  whose  theory  they  believed  extended  too 
far  toward  centrahzation. 

Slavery  becomes  a  partizan  question.  The  RepubHcan 
party  had  no  history  and  therefore  no  traditions,  save  as  it 
was  regarded  as  the  successor  of  Whig  traditions  and  therefore 
representative  of  the  Whig  principles  which  were  Hamiltonian. 
The  growth  of  the  Republican  party  was  determined  by  an 
issue,  not  by  a  theory  of  government,  except  as  was  suggested 
by  the  issue.  Its  origin  was  in  response  to  a  demand  in  the 
North  to  limit  the  extension  of  slavery.  This  sentiment  was 
strong  enough  to  threaten  the  Democratic  party  with  deposi- 
tion at  once.  The  issue  was  made  up.  The  Republican  party 
opposed  the  further  spread  of  slavery.  The  Southern  wing 
of  the  Democratic  party  demanded  constitutional  protection, 
the  same  as  granted  to  other  species  of  property.  The 
Democratic  party,  proper,  attempted  to  reach  a  compromise 
by  agreeing  to  allow  the  people  of  the  State  or  Territory  to 
decide  the  question  for  themselves.  The  "popular  sover- 
eignty" scheme  failed  to  satisfy  the  radical  wing  of  the 
Democracy  in  the  South.  The  years  1858,  1859  and  i860 
furnished  abundant  evidence  that  the  extremists  of  the  South 
would  not  follow  the  lead  of  Douglas.  This  sectional  dis- 
sension fed  the  Republican  ranks  as  it  weakened  the  Demo- 
cratic ranks.  The  situation  disrupted  the  party  and  it  went 
before  the  country  in  i860  with  two  candidates,  making  it 
possible  for  the  Republican  candidate  to  receive  a  majority  of 
the  electoral  votes  and  secure  the  election  without  receiving 
a  single  electoral  vote  from  the  Slave  States.  Thus  slavery 
gave  rise  to  a  new  political  party,  disrupted  the  party  that  had 
attempted  to  protect  it,  occasioned  a  sectional  contest  and 
laid  the  foundations  for  a  solid  South  and  a  united  North. 

Election  of  Lincoln  and  Secession  of  the  States.  Abraham 
Lincoln  was  elected  President  on  the  sixth  of  November,  i860. 
His  inauguration  was  on  the  following  fourth  of  March.     On 


342  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

the  twentieth  of  December,  i860,  South  CaroHna  passed  the 
Ordinance  of  Secession,  declaring  itself  no  longer  a  part  of  the 
Union.  One  month  later,  on  the  twenty-first  of  January,  a 
dramatic  scene  was  enacted  in  the  United  States  Senate 
Chamber  when  the  senators  from  all  the  States  except  South 
Carohna  were  present.  Those  from  Florida,  Alabama  and 
Mississippi  withdrew  from  the  Senate. 

Confederate  States  of  America.  On  February  fourth,  1861, 
the  seven  States  which  had  seceded,  held  a  convention  at 
Montgomery,  Alabama.  Four  days  later  it  adopted  a  pro- 
visional constitution  and  on  the  following  day  elected  Jefferson 
Davis  president  and  Alexander  Stephens  of  Georgia  vice- 
president.  On  the  eleventh  of  March  the  permanent  consti- 
tution was  adopted.  With  slight  exceptions  this  instrument 
is  in  the  phraseology  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  except  where 
the  altered  circumstances  necessitated  a  change.  Its  pre- 
amble omitted  the  "general  welfare"  clause,  which  had  been 
a  nightmare  to  the  Strict  Constructionist.  The  slight  excep- 
tions had  reference  to  the  points  in  dispute.  The  framers 
desired  to  leave  no  room  for  dispute.  The  doctrine  of  State 
Sovereignty  was  expressly  declared.  It  asserted  protection  of 
slavery,  but  forbade  the  slave-trade.  It  denied  the  power  to 
estabhsh  a  protective  tariff,  and  forbade  the  adoption  of  an 
internal  improvement  policy.  These  items  had  been  opposed 
by  the  slave  States  since  the  days  of  the  younger  Adams.  The 
constitution  followed  the  English  custom  of  giving  Cabinet 
members  a  voice  in  legislation,  by  permitting  them  to  speak 
to  either  House  of  the  Confederate  congress.  It  made  the 
presidential  term  six  years,  and  forbade  a  re-election.  The 
constitution  was  not  submitted  to  the  people  of  the  States 
for  ratification,  but  to  conventions  in  each  State. 

Certainty  of  war.  Thus  two  weeks  before  Lincoln  was 
inaugurated,  the  Confederacy  was  estabhshed.  On  the  twelfth 
of  April,  Fort  Sumter  was  bombarded.  On  the  fifteenth, 
Lincoln  called  for  troops.     Four  more  States  joined  the  seven 


Jefferson  Davis 


343 


344  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

in  Secession:  Arkansas  May  6,  North  Carolina  May  20,  Vir- 
ginia May  23,  and  Tennessee  June  8.  The  contention  over 
rival  political  theories  was  at  last  transferred  from  the  council 
chamber  to  the  battle-field.  War  was  chosen  as  the  final  test 
of  constitutional  interpretation.  This  was  continued  from 
April  12,  1 86 1,  the  bombardment  of  Fort  Sumter,  to  April  9, 
1865,  the  surrender  of  Lee  at  Appomattox. 

Its  extent.  During  the  war  there  were  at  least  two  and  a 
quarter  milHon  soldiers  in  the  field.  There  were  over  three 
hundred  battles  fought  which  are  recorded  as  sanguine  engage- 
ments. The  loss  of  life  from  various  causes  on  both  sides 
approximated  six  hundred  thousand.  The  cost  in  money 
baffles  all  figures.  The  slave  property  alone  was  estimated  to 
be  at  least  $2,000,000,000.  The  loss  due  to  the  suspension  of 
production  will  not  admit  of  estimate.  All  this  was  to  deter- 
mine the  correct  interpretation  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  in 
a  dispute  between  the  advocates  of  State  Sovereignty  on  the 
one  hand,  and  those  of  constitutional  supremacy  on  the  other. 
The  prosecution  of  a  war  to  suppress  a  rebelhon  necessitated 
an  enlargement  of  the  constitutional  supremacy  doctrine,  a 
fact  readily  accepted  by  Lincoln. 

The  Cleveland  convention.  There  was  a  considerable 
element  in  the  North  which  could  not  adjust  its  theories  of 
aboHtion  to  the  Administration's  policy  of  inactivity  on  the 
slavery  question.  These  elements  in  Lincoln's  own  party 
crystallized  in  a  convention  of  three  hundred  delegates,  held 
in  Cleveland  on  the  31st  of  May,  1864,  to  express  their  opposi- 
tion to  the  President  and  his  poHcy.  The  call  of  the  conven- 
tion denounced  the  administration  of  Lincoln  as  "  imbecile 
and  vacillating."  It  characterized  his  conduct  of  the  war  as 
"  treachery  to  justice,  freedom,  and  genuine  democratic  prin- 
ciples, in  its  plan  of  reconstruction,  whereby  the  honor  and 
dignity  of  the  nation  have  been  sacrificed  to  conciliate  this  still 
existing  and  arrogant  slave-power,"  etc.  The  immediate 
extinction  of  slavery  was  demanded  by  them  throughout  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      345 

nation  by  congressional  action.  Both  Wendell  Pliillips  and 
Frederick  Douglass  sent  letters  to  be  read.  The  convention 
set  out  its  principles  in  a  brief  platform  of  thirteen  resolutions. 
They  demanded  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  the  observance 


Alexander  H.  Stephens 

of  the  Constitution,  and  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion  with- 
out compromise.  They  demanded  that  the  rights  of  free 
speech  and  a  free  press  and  habeas  corpus  should  be  held 
inviolate.  They  demanded  an  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion abolishing  slavery,  and  a  guaranty  of  equal  rights  to  all 


346  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

before  the  law.  They  declared  in  favor  of  the  single  term  for 
the  presidency,  and  the  election  of  President  by  a  direct  vote 
of  the  people.  They  further  declared  that  Reconstruction  of 
the  rebellious  States  belonged  to  the  people  through  their 
representatives  in  Congress,  and  not  to  the  Executive;  that 
the  confiscation  of  the  lands  of  the  rebels  and  their  distribution 
among  the  soldiers  and  actual  settlers  was  a  just  measure. 

Fremont's  nomination.  The  convention  nominated  General 
Fremont  for  President,  who  at  once  accepted.  He  said :  "  The 
ordinary  rights  secured  under  the  Constitution  and  the  laws 
of  the  country  have  been  violated,  and  extraordinary  powers 
have  been  suspended  by  the  Executive."  He  continued, 
"We  have  to-day  an  administration,  marked  at  home  by  dis- 
regard of  constitutional  rights,  by  its  violation  of  its  personal 
liberty  and  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and  as  a  crowning  shame 
by  its  abandonment  of  asylum.  ...  If  Mr.  Lincoln  should  be 
nominated,  there  will  remain  no  other  alternative  to  organizing 
against  him  every  element  of  conscientious  opposition  with  a 
view  to  prevent  the  misfortune  of  his  election."  The  general 
outburst  of  indignation  which  followed  this  convention,  and  the 
certainty  of  the  nomination  and  election  of  Lincoln,  caused 
Fremont  to  withdraw  from  the  ticket  within  a  month  after 
his  nomination. 

Renomination  of  Lincoln.  One  week  after  the  Cleveland 
convention  the  Repubhcan  convention  met  in  Baltimore. 
Public  opinion  was  voiced  by  one  of  the  leaders  who  declared 
that  Mr.  Lincoln  was  already  nominated  and  the  convention 
had  nothing  to  do  but  to  announce  the  decision  of  the  people. 

Nomination  of  Andrew  Johnson.  The  desire  to  appease 
certain  elements  in  the  party,  and  also  to  weaken  the  forces  of 
the  Confederacy,  was  manifest  in  the  selection  of  the  candidate 
for  Vice-President.  Hannibal  HamHn,  an  anti-slavery  Demo- 
crat, had  been  an  able  and  impartial  presiding  officer.  But  in 
the  convention  he  was  set  aside  for  Andrew  Johnson  of  Tennes- 
see.    Mr.  Johnson's  attitude  in  opposition  to  Secession  in  his 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED    STATES      347 

own  State,  his  refusal  to  leave  the  Senate  when  his  State 
seceded,  and  his  strenuous  efforts  to  maintain  the  integrity  of 
the  Union,  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Administration  which 
made  him  military  governor  of  his  State  and  he  left  his  place 
in  the  Senate  to  accept  the  position.  All  this  was  sufficient 
recommendation  for  his  nomination  as  Vice-President. 

Democratic  convention.  On  the  29th  of  August  the 
Democratic  convention  met  in  Chicago  and  organized  by 
electing  Horatio  Seymour  of  New  York  as  permanent  chair- 
man. It  adopted  a  brief  platform  of  seven  resolutions,  which 
proved  to  be  a  political  blunder.  The  platform  was  altogether 
negative  in  character,  denunciatory  in  temper,  and  referred  ■ 
to  the  war  as  a  failure.  George  B.  McClellan  was  nominated 
for  President  on  the  first  ballot,  and  George  H.  Pendleton 
was  nominated  for  Vice-President  on  the  second.  As  before 
mentioned,  General  McClellan,  in  his  letter  of  acceptance, 
repudiated  the  suggestion  of  the  platform  that  the  war  was  a 
failure. 

Election.  The  campaign  resulted  in  the  triumphant  re- 
election of  Lincoln,  who  received  212  electoral  votes  out  of  a 
total  of  233.  However,  General  McClellan  received  a  popular 
vote  of  1,802,237  out  of  a  total  of  over  4,000,000.  Of  the 
150,635  votes  cast  by  the  soldiers  in  the  field,  Lincoln  received 
all  but  33,748.  The  election  was  an  endorsement  of  the  war 
policy  of  the  Administration.  The  war  thus  left  the  parties 
much  as  it  found  them  and  political  theory  was  accentuated  on 
old  lines. 

Positive  and  negative  parties.  The  exigencies  of  war  com- 
pelled the  party  in  authority  to  assume  a  positive  character, 
to  act  as  a  constructive  force  emphasizing  authority.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  party  out  of  power  took  the  defensive  attitude, 
which  was  negative  in  character  and  emphasized  liberty. 
And  as  the  party  in  power  always  become  a  Loose  Construc- 
tion party,  the  RepubHcan  party  employed  a  liberal  con- 
struction of  the  Constitution.     As  the  party  out  of  power  as 


348  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

truly  becomes  the  Strict  Construction  party,  the  Democratic 
party  employed  that  principle  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
Constitution.  This  rule  of  interpretation  will  explain  the 
persistent  opposition  of  the  Democratic  party  to  the  various 
measures  of  the  government  under  Republican  control  for  the 
past  fifty  years.  This  serves  as  the  rational  basis  upon  which 
parties  in  democracies  arise  and  grow.  This  line  of  demarca- 
tion was  further  accentuated  by  the  Reconstruction  measures, 
Lincoln's  expectations.  The  ultimate  suppression  of  the 
rebellion  was  from  the.  very  opening  of  the  war  regarded  by 
President  Lincoln  as  a  matter  of  time.  He  never  entertained 
a  doubt  about  the  triumph  of  the  Union  cause.  He  expected 
to  be  called  upon  to  reconstruct  the  States.  He  was  therefore 
much  concerned  about  what  was  to  be  done  after  the  surrender 
of  the  Confederate  forces.  The  eleven  States  in  Secession 
had  no  representation  in  the  national  Congress,  both  the  sena- 
tors and  the  representatives  from  these  States  having  with- 
drawn at  the  opening  of  the  war.  When  rebellion  had  ceased, 
order  was  restored,  and  national  authority  reinstated  through- 
out the  rebellious  States,  what  should  be  done  relative  to  admit- 
ting their  senators  and  representatives  who  applied  to  Congress 
for  admission?  This  was  the  problem  of  Reconstruction. 
Upon  this  question  at  least  two  distinct  theories  existed  in  the 
minds  of  the  statesmen.  President  Lincoln  had  said  in  his 
first  inaugural  address,  "No  State  upon  its  own  mere  motion 
can  lawfully  get  out  of  the  Union;  resolves  and  ordinances  to 
that  effect  are  legally  void.  ...  I  therefore  consider  that,  in 
view  of  the  Constitution  and  the  laws,  the  Union  is  unbroken." 
This  view  was  repeated  in  his  first  annual  message.  He  said, 
"The  States  have  their  status  in  the  Union,  and  they  have  no 
other  legal  status."  This  view  would  imply  that  the  question 
of  Reconstruction  was  an  executive  function.  As  the  Presi- 
dent is  charged  with  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  the  land, 
any  infraction  of  the  same  would  be  suppressed  by  him  as  the 
commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  the  navy. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      349 

Views  on  the  status  of  seceded  States.  There  were  others 
who  regarded  the  States  in  rebelHon  as  having  forfeited  all 
rights  under  the  government,  and  when  conquered,  should  be 
treated  as  conquered  territory,  to  be  dealt  with  as  the  majority 
of  Congress  saw  fit.  This  latter  class  claimed  that  Recon- 
struction was  not  an  executive,  but  a  legislative  function.  Mr. 
Lincoln  beheved  that  the  States  should  be  put  as  nearly  as 
possible  in  statu  quo,  except  in  those  matters  where  inevitable 
changes  were  entailed  by  actual  war.  He  earnestly  desired 
to  interfere  with  local  rights  as  httle  as  was  consistent  with  the 
enforcement  of  law  and  the  maintenance  of  order.  To  a 
friend  of  local  self-government  he  said  in  reply  to  a  complaint, 
"The  people  of  Louisiana  know  full  well  that  I  never  had  a 
wish  to  touch  the  foundations  of  society,  or  any  right  of  theirs. 
With  perfect  knowledge  of  this  they  forced  upon  me  the  neces- 
sity to  send  armies  among  them,  and  it  is  their  own  fault  not 
mine.  They  very  well  know  the  only  way  to  avoid  all  this  is 
to  take  their  place  in  the  Union  upon  the  old  terms."  His 
anxiety  to  restore  national  authority  was  not  simply  in  the 
interest  of  order,  but  he  earnestly  desired  to  protect  and 
respect  that  considerable  population  that  remained  loyal  to 
the  Union. 

Lincoln's  steps  toward  reconstruction.  Then  as  the  national 
arms  succeeded  in  bringing  under  Federal  control  various 
parts  of  the  States,  such  as  parts  of  Louisiana  after  the  cap- 
ture of  New  Orleans  in  early  1862,  and  parts  of  Arkansas,  and 
most  of  Tennessee,  measures  for  maintaining  order  were 
necessary.  It  was  the  desire  of  the  government  to  supersede 
the  mihtary  authority  in  these  localities  with  civil  authority 
as  soon  as  possible.  Accordingly  military  governors  were 
appointed  for  the  States,  with  instructions  to  install  self- 
government  as  soon  as  conditions  would  permit.  Andrew 
Johnson  was  appointed  governor  of  Tennessee;  Edward 
Stanley  of  North  Carolina,  G.  F.  Shepley  of  Louisiana,  and 
John  S.  Phelps,  of  Arkansas.     Mr.  Lincoln  decHned  to  be 


350  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

committed  to  any  one  specific  method  of  restoration.  His 
information  had  led  him  to  prefer  to  hold  himself  ready  to 
accept  any  or  all  plans  that  would  better  adjust  themselves 
to  the  local  conditions  where  appHed. 

His  proclamation  —  December,  1863.  On  the  eighth  day 
of  December,  1863,  the  President  in  his  annual  message  in- 
formed Congress  that  on  that  day  he  had  issued  a  proclama- 
tion extending  pardon  to  all  who  had  engaged  in  rebellion, 
except  specified  classes.  The  pardon  was  granted  on  condition 
that  a  prescribed  oath  of  allegiance  would  be  taken.  The 
proclamation  declared  that  whenever  in  any  of  the  seceded 
States  a  number  of  persons,  not  less  than  one-tenth  of  the 
number  of  the  votes  cast  in  such  State  at  the  presidential 
election  of  i860,  each  having  taken  the  oath  and  not  having 
violated  it  since,  and  being  a  qualified  voter  by  the  election 
law  of  the  State  existing  immediately  before  the  act  of  so- 
called  Secession,  should  re-establish  a  government  which  should 
be  republican,  such  should  be  recognized  as  the  true  govern- 
ment of  the  State  and  receive  the  benefits  of  the  constitutional 
provision  which  guarantees  a  republican  form  of  government 
to  each  State. 

Integrity  of  the  State.  The  proclamation  also  announced 
that  any  provision  looking  to  the  permanent  freedom  and 
education  of  the  freedmen  of  the  State  would  not  be  objection- 
able to  the  national  executive.  It  also  suggested  that  the 
erection  of  a  loyal  State  government  should  maintain  the  name 
of  the  State,  its  boundaries,  its  subdivisions,  its  Constitution 
and  its  code  of  laws,  existing  before  the  Rebelhon,  subject  only 
to  the  modifications  made  necessary  by  actual  war.  The 
proclamation  also  reminded  the  country  that  the  question  of 
the  admittance  of  the  members  of  Congress  from  these  States 
was  with  each  House  which  was  made  judge  of  the  election 
and  qualifications  of  its  own  members. 

Elements  in  the  presidential  plan.  The  presidential  plan 
rested  upon  an  oath  of  allegiance,  which  bound  the  citizen  to 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      351 

sustain  the  Constitution,  the  laws  of  Congress,  and  the  procla- 
mations of  the  Executive.  It  attempted  to  forestall  any 
usurpation  of  power  by  strangers,  by  insisting  on  the  same 
quaHfications  for  voting  that  had  been  required  by  the  State 
prior  to  the  war.  He  wrote  to  Governor  Shepley  of  Louisiana, 
warning  him  against  allowing  outside  persons  to  interfere  in 
the  government  of  the  State.  Continuing  he  said:  "To  send 
a  parcel  of  Northern  men  here  as  representatives,  elected  as 
would  be  understood  (and  perhaps  really  so)  at  the  point  of 
the  bayonet,  would  be  disgraceful  and  outrageous.  And  were 
I  a  member  of  Congress  here,  I  would  vote  against  admitting 
any  such  man  to  a  seat."  The  plan  depended  upon  at  least 
one- tenth  of  the  voting  population  in  i860  taking  the  oath. 
This  phase  was  bitterly  opposed  by  the  radical  element  in 
Congress  which  denominated  the  plan  as  the  "shorthand 
method"  of  Reconstruction.  However  Louisiana  was  recon- 
structed under  it.  The  new  constitution  adopted  abohshed 
slavery.  Michael  Hahn  was  inaugurated  on  the  4th  of  March, 
1864,  as  the  first  free-State  governor  of  Louisiana. 

Reconstruction  in  Arkansas.  The  President's  proclamation 
had  been  well  received  by  a  considerable  element  of  the  popu- 
lation of  Arkansas,  where  from  the  very  beginning  a  strong 
Union  sentiment  existed,  but  not  sufficient  to  prevent  the 
radicals  from  carrying  the  State  into  Secession.  As  soon  as 
the  proclamation  reached  these  people,  they  proceeded  to 
erect  a  State  government.  They  adopted  a  Constitution  in 
compliance  with  the  proclamation,  which  abolished  slavery. 
The  constitution  was  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  people 
voting.  On  the  same  day  Fishback  and  Baxter  were  chosen 
as  senators.  When  they  presented  their  credentials  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  that  body,  under  the  lead  of  Senator 
Sumner  of  Massachusetts,  passed  the  following  resolution: 
"That  a  State  pretending  to  secede  from  the  Union,  and 
battling  against  the  general  government  to  maintain  that 
position,  must  be  regarded  as  a  rebel  State,  subject  to  military 


352    .  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

occupation,  and  without  representation  on  this  floor,  until  it 
has  been  readmitted  by  a  vote  of  both  Houses  of  Congress; 
and  the  Senate  will  decline  to  entertain  any  application  from 
any  such  rebel  State  until  after  such  a  vote  of  both  Houses." 

Attitude  of  the  Senate.  The  decisive  attitude  of  the  Senate 
in  rejecting  or  refusing  to  admit  the  senators  of  a  State  which 
had  complied  with  the  presidential  requirements  of  restoration, 
revealed  a  divided  council  in  the  Administration.  It  was  dis- 
covered that  a  constitutional  difference  existed  between  the 
advocates  of  Reconstruction.  The  President  had  proceeded 
on  the  ground  that  the  reconstruction  of  the  States  was  an 
executive  function,  based  upon  his  obligation  to  enforce  the 
laws  of  the  land.  The  Senate  had  proceeded  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  a  matter  of  legislation,  and  therefore  it  remained 
with  Congress  to  fix  the  conditions  upon  which  the  members 
of  Congress  from  the  States  would  be  admitted. 

Executive  function.  Whether  it  was  a  question  for  the 
executive  or  for  the  legislative  department,  depended  upon 
the  status  of  the  State  after  Secession.  Mr.  Lincoln  insisted 
that  all  acts  of  Secession  were  void,  and  the  seceding  State  had 
no  status  outside  of  the  Union.  Therefore  the  State  was  not 
out  of  the  Union.  The  only  way  it  could  get  out  was  by 
revolution.  He  admitted  that  the  proper  relations  between 
the  State  and  national  government  were  interrupted  and 
should  be  restored  as  nearly  as  possible  to  what  they  were 
before  the  war.  As  rebelUon  was  organized  opposition  to  the 
government,  and  the  President,  as  the  commander-in-chief  of 
the  miHtary  power,  was  charged  with  its  suppression,  the 
restoration  after  the  war  was  largely  an  executive  function. 

Legislative  function.  On  the  other  hand,  there  were  those 
in  Congress  who  claimed  the  act  of  rebelhon  placed  the  States 
beyond  the  protection  of  the  Constitution,  so  that  they  could 
not  claim  what  they  enjoyed  before  their  rebellion,  except  by 
the  sufferance  of  the  national  government.  This  sufferance 
was  defined  by  the  law-making  power  in  the  government. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES      353 

This  power  claimed  that  the  States,  having  voluntarily 
attempted  to  destroy  the  Constitution,  had  no  voice  in  the 
attempt  to  repair  the  breach,  or  in  restoring  it.  It  claimed 
the  States  were  conquered,  and  as  conquered  States  they  were 
subject  to  the  will  of  the  government  as  territories  of  the 
government. 

Congressional  plan.  With  this  view  Congress  proceeded 
to  formulate  a  plan  of  Reconstruction.  It  framed  a  bill  re- 
quiring the  President  to  appoint  for  each  State  a  provisional 
governor,  whose  duty  it  was  to  administer  authority  until  a 
State  government  was  organized.  The  provisional  governor 
was  to  take  a  poll  of  all  the  white  male  citizens  of  the  State, 
and  when  a  majority  of  them  had  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance, 
a  convention  was  to  be  called  to  frame  a  constitution.  Only 
such  delegates  as  had  taken  the  oath,  and  not  otherwise  dis- 
qualified, could  take  part  in  the  convention.  The  con- 
stitution must  incorporate  certain  Hmitations  on  suffrage  and 
office-holding.  It  incorporated  what  was  afterward  known  as 
the  iron-clad  oath.  It  was  required  to  aboHsh  slavery  and  repu- 
diate the  Confederate  debt.  The  bill  required  that  the  consti- 
tution must  be  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  popular  vote. 
And  when  these  facts  had  been  certified  by  the  governor  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  the  latter,  after  obtaining  the 
consent  of  Congress,  should  recognize  the  government  so 
established  as  the  government  of  the  State,  and  from  that 
date  congressmen  and  presidential  electors  should  be  elected 
in  the  State. 

President's  treatment  of  the  bill.  This  bill  was  presented 
to  the  President  for  his  signature,  as  he  afterward  stated,  just 
one  hour  before  Congress  adjourned  sine  die.  The  President 
neither  signed  nor  returned  it.  This  was  known  as  the  pocket 
veto  to  which  Jackson  frequently  resorted.  A  few  days  later 
the  President  did  the  unusual  thing  of  issuing  a  proclamation 
stating  his  reasons  for  not  signing  the  bill.  This  incident 
reveals  a  ruling  principle  in  the  life  of  Abraham  Lincoln.     No 


354  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

man  in  our  history  had  the  implicit  faith  in  the  soundness  of 
the  judgment  of  the  people  at  large  as  did  he.  Only  two  men 
ever  approached  him  in  this  trait  of  character;  they  were 
Samuel  Adams  and  Thomas  Jefferson.  Mr.  Lincoln  in  times 
of  crises  frequently  took  into  his  confidence  the  whole  Ameri- 
can people,  as  he  did  on  this  occasion.  In  his  proclamation  he 
said  that  he  dechned  to  commit  himself  inflexibly  to  any 
scheme  of  Reconstruction,  but  preferred  to  hold  himself  ready 
to  adopt  any  scheme  that  appeared  most  feasible.  He  also 
declined  to  set  aside  the  free-State  constitutions  already 
adopted  in  at  least  three  States  in  order  to  make  room  for  the 
inflexible  plan  of  Congress.  He  made  it  plain  that  if  any 
State  would  embrace  the  plan  of  Congress  he  would  readily 
assist  it  in  that  plan  of  Reconstruction.  Without  the  State's 
consent,  he  questioned  the  authority  of  Congress  to  abolish 
slavery  in  the  States.  He  repeated  his  recommendation  for 
a  constitutional  amendment  to  abolish  slavery. 

Wade-Davis  manifesto.  This  unprecedented  procedure  on 
the  part  of  the  Executive  was  a  signal  for  bitter  resentment  of 
certain  congressmen.  Such  men  as  Senators  Sumner  and 
Wade,  and  Representatives  Stevens  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
Henry  Winter  Davis  of  Maryland,  were  gravely  offended. 
The  proclamation  of  the  President  was  issued  on  the  8th  day 
of  July,  1864.  On  the  5th  of  August  following,  appeared  in 
New  York  Tribune  the  famous  Wade-Davis  manifesto,  a 
lengthy  document,  denouncing  the  President  for  what  was 
styled  his  unconstitutional  procedure.  This  famous  document 
charged  the  President  with  a  conspiracy  to  defeat  the  Recon- 
struction plan  of  the  friends  of  good  government,  in  order  that 
he  might  establish  mere  shadows  of  government  in  his  own 
interest  and  impose  them  upon  the  people  by  military  dicta- 
tion. It  charged  him  with  attempting  to  reorganize  the 
States  that  he  might  hold  in  his  hands  their  electoral  votes 
for  personal  ambition.  It  charged  him  with  inconsistency 
and  bad  faith  on  the  slavery  question;  with  defiance  of  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES      355 

legislative  department  of  the  government  by  rejecting  a  bill 
enacted  by  it,  and  then  putting  only  such  parts  of  it  in  opera- 
tion as  suited  him.  It  claimed  that  the  presidential  plan  was 
in  the  interest  of  the  rebelUous,  rather  than  the  loyal,  popu- 
lation. The  manifesto  was  caustic  in  tone  and  terrific  in 
indictment.     However  the  people  did  not  heed  it. 

President's  desire.  The  attitude  of  the  President  clearly 
showed  his  anxiety  to  interfere  with  local  concerns  just  as  Httle 
as  the  situation  would  allow.  Inevitable  friction  between 
civil  and  miHtary  authority  in  the  process  of  Reconstruction 
gave  him  no  end  of  trouble,  as  is  revealed  in  his  correspondence 
on  the  subject.  He  was  determined  to  stand  by  the  Emancipa- 
tion Proclamation  and  such  other  exercise  of  authority  as  he 
was  compelled  to  use.  This  determination  together  with  his 
desire  not  to  punish  those  who  had  stood  loyal  to  the  cause 
of  the  Union,  although  holders  of  slaves,  was  fraught  with 
unending  difficulty.  To  exercise  the  supremacy  of  the  Con- 
stitution and  at  the  same  time  to  respect  the  privilege  of  the 
people  of  the  States,  was  a  grave  problem.  On  the  assembling 
of  Congress  the  Reconstruction  question  was  again  taken  up. 
It  was  apparent  that  the  election  had  had  the  effect  of  restrain- 
ing the  radicalism  of  certain  leaders  in  Congress.  Mr.  Lin- 
coln's position,  having  been  reinforced  by  a  sweeping  election, 
was  too  strong  to  be  set  aside. 

Procedure  in  Louisiana.  In  October,  1864,  the  legislature 
of  Louisiana  elected  senators,  who  sought  admission  to  the 
Federal  body.  The  President  had  been  in  communication 
with  the  chairman  of  the  judiciary  committee  of  the  Senate. 
He  inquired,  "Can  Louisiana  be  brought  into  proper  practical 
relations  with  the  Union  sooner,  by  admitting,  or  by  rejecting 
the  proposed  senators? "  The  committee  reported  in  Feb- 
ruary in  favor  of  recognizing  the  government  of  Louisiana  as 
the  State  government.  A  minority  in  opposition,  taking  advan- 
tage of  the  rule  which  prevents  limitation  of  debate,  talked  out 
the  time  to  the  end  of  the  session,   consequently  Congress 


356  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

adjourned  with  nothing  done  on  Reconstruction.  For  at  least 
nine  months  there  could  be  no  further  opportunity  to  accomplish 
anything  toward  Reconstruction  by  the  legislative  department, 
unless  the  President  should  call  Congress  in  special  session. 

Lincoln's  concern.  At  the  time  of  adjournment,  events  in 
the  field  pointed  to  an  early  end  of  the  Rebellion.  President 
Lincoln  had  been  at  the  front  to  consult  with  Lieutenant- 
general  Grant.  A  few  days  later  General  Lee  surrendered. 
Throughout  the  loyal  States,  veritable  tornadoes  of  enthu- 
siasm swept  the  country  not  unlike  the  excitement  created 
by  the  attack  upon  Fort  Sumter  four  years  before.  The 
Capital  was  the  Mecca  of  enthusiastic  delegations  which  went 
to  congratulate  the  President,  and  through  him  the  American 
people,  for  the  successful  termination  of  the  war.  While  the 
President  shared  with  his  callers  the  joy  occasioned  by  a  cessa- 
tion of  war,  he  remained  silent,  evidently  occupied  with  the 
larger  problem  of  restoration,  which  had  claimed  his  best 
thought  for  the  preceding  twelve  months.  To  him  victory  was 
one  thing,  how  to  use  it  a  wholly  different  thing.  With  his 
keen  penetrating  vision  he  saw  before  him  difficulties  to  be 
encountered.  As  the  executive  head,  charged  with  the  duty  of 
enforcing  order  throughout  the  nation,  he  sincerely  desired  to 
do  it  in  a  way  that  would  insure  the  establishment  of  a  repub- 
lican form  of  government  in  all  the  States.  He  desired  the 
restoration  of  the  States  as  nearly  as  possible  to  what  they  were 
before  the  attempt  to  secede  was  made,  subject  only  to  such 
changes  as  were  made  necessary  by  the  war.  He  was  com- 
mitted to  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  in  the  rebellious 
States,  but  he  did  not  desire  to  extend  it  to  other  States  with- 
out an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  which  he  had  fre- 
quently recommended.  He  was  clear  in  his  conviction  that 
Secession  was  a  crime,  but  he  preferred  to  hold  individuals, 
rather  than  States,  to  answer  for  it. 

His  discretion.  He  was  fully  alive  to  the  enormity  of  the 
crime  of  rebellion,  yet  he  was  inclined  to  honor  and  respect  an 


General  Robert  E.  Lee 


357 


358  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

oath  of  allegiance.  He  disliked  to  recognize  any  number  less 
than  a  majority  as  the  government  in  a  State,  yet  he  felt  that 
a  loyal  minority  should  be  respected  and  should  not  be  sub- 
jected to  the  rule  of  martial  law  if  avoidable.  He  frequently 
declared  that  he  would  not  rescind  his  proclamation  of  eman- 
cipation, but  he  questioned  the  power  of  Congress  to  aboKsh 
slavery  in  the  States.  He  fully  conceded  to  Congress  its 
jurisdiction  in  declaring  the  qualifications  of  its  own  members, 
but  questioned  the  wisdom  of  prescribing  any  fast  rule  of 
restoration.  He  stood  ready  and  willing  to  join  any  attempt 
at  Reconstruction  that  agreed  with  our  system  of  government. 
He,  perhaps,  more  clearly  than  any  other  man  in  the  nation, 
comprehended  the  status  of  the  States  in  rebellion,  but  he 
ignored  the  metaphysical  distinctions  whose  inevitable  results 
were  confusion. 

His  last  speech.  On  the  nth  of  April,  1865,  from  the 
Executive  Mansion  he  read  to  a  Hstening  throng  his  last 
speech,  a  carefully  prepared  exposition,  almost  entirely  devoted 
to  the  problem  of  Reconstruction.  Among  other  things  he 
said:  "  Reconstruction  which  has  had  a  large  share  of  thought 
from  the  first  is  pressed  much  more  closely  upon  our  attention. 
It  is  fraught  with  great  difficulty.  .  .  .  Nor  is  it  a  small  addi- 
tional embarrassment,  that  we,  the  loyal  people,  differ  among 
ourselves,  as  to  the  mode,  manner  and  measure  of  Reconstruc- 
tion." In  referring  to  the  censure  of  his  part  in  the  Recon- 
struction of  Louisiana  he  said:  "In  this  I  have  done  just  so 
much  as,  and  no  more  than,  the  public  knows."  He  then 
repeated  what  had  been  done  in  Louisiana.  He  continued, 
"As  to  sustaining  it,  my  promise  is  out  as  before  stated.  But 
as  bad  promises  are  better  broken  than  kept,  I  shall  treat  this 
as  a  bad  promise  and  break  it  whenever  I  shall  be  convinced 
that  keeping  it  is  adverse  to  the  public  interest;  but  I  have 
not  yet  been  so  convinced."  He  showed  slight  irritation  over 
the  contention  of  certain  metaphysical  statesmen  both  in  his 
own  and  in  the  opposite  party,  who  persisted  that  the  States 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES      359 

were  either  in  or  out  of  the  Union.  To  these  he  said:  "As 
it  appears  to  me  that  question  has  not  been  nor  yet  is  a 
practically  material  one,  and  that  any  discussion  of  it,  while 
it  thus  remains  practically  immaterial,  could  have  no  effect 
other  than  the  mischievous  one  of  dividing  our  friends.  As 
yet,  whatever  it  may  hereafter  become,  that  question  is  bad, 
as  the  basis  of  a  controversy,  and  good  for  nothing  at  all  —  a 
mere  pernicious  abstraction.  We  all  admit  that  the  seceded 
States,  so  called,  are  out  of  their  proper  practical  relations 
with  the  Union,  and  that  the  sole  object  of  the  government, 
civil  and  mihtary,  in  regard  to  those  States,  is  again  to  get 
them  into  that  proper  practical  relation.  .  .  .  Finding  them- 
selves safely  at  home,  it  would  be  utterly  immaterial  whether 
they  had  ever  been  abroad."  He  continued,  "Let  us  all  join 
in  doing  the  acts  necessary  to  restoring  the  proper  practical 
relations  between  these  States  and  the  Union,  and  each  for- 
ever after  innocently  indulge  his  own  opinion  whether  in  doing 
the  acts  he  brought  the  States  from  without  into  the  Union, 
or  only  gave  them  proper  assistance,  they  never  having 
been  out  of  it."  He  continued,  "It  is  also  unsatisfactory 
to  some  that  the  elective  franchise  is  not  given  to  the 
colored  man.  I  would  myself  prefer  that  it  were  now  con- 
ferred on  the  very  intelligent,  and  on  those  who  serve  our 
cause  as  soldiers." 

His  death.  The  new  announcement  was  never  made.  Four 
days  later  the  bullet  of  the  assassin  closed  his  lips  to  any  fur- 
ther announcement  upon  this  great  question,  from  the  one 
man  whose  influence  with  the  people  enabled  him  to  dictate 
terms  upon  which  the  States  could  have  been  reconstructed. 
His  death  removed  the  one  insurmountable  obstacle  to  the 
success  of  radical  measures  in  Reconstruction.  The  death 
of  Mr.  Lincoln  removed  the  greatest  friend  of  the  erring  States, 
and  made  way  for  another,  a  citizen  of  one  of  the  insurrection- 
ary States,  but  pre-eminently  disqualified  to  lead  in  such  an 
important  work  as  Reconstruction. 


360  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

State  of  parties.  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  during  their 
continuance  saw  the  country  with  two  political  parties,  the 
Democratic  and  the  Republican,  divided  upon  constitutional 
questions,  on  strict  and  loose  construction  of  the  Constitution. 
The  RepubHcan  party  held  factions  growing  out  of  the  war; 
but  the  differences  were  not  on  the  hues  which  separated  the 
party  from  its  hereditary  opponent.  On  the  power  of  the  gov- 
ernment, the  party  was  a  unit.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Demo- 
cratic party  was  distracted  by  the  attitude  of  its  Southern 
wing. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

LEGISLATIVE  AND  EXECUTIVE  CONFLICT 

Situation  of  Johnson  —  April  15,  1865.  On  the  4th  of 
March,  1865,  the  38th  Congress  ended  by  limitation,  and  the 
39th  began.  By  a  constitutional  requirement  the  sessions  of 
Congress  open  on  the  first  Monday  of  December,  unless  called 
into  special  session  by  the  President  before  that  date.  Lin- 
coln's death  on  the  15th  of  April  left  to  his  successor,  Andrew 
Johnson,  a  heritage  of  complicated  problems  growing  out  of  the 
war.  Chief  of  these  was  that  of  Reconstruction,  which  had 
given  Mr.  Lincoln  so  much  concern  during  his  last  days. 
Johnson  had  been  an  interested  observer  of  the  dispute  be- 
tween his  predecessor  and  the  radical  wing  of  the  Republican 
party  in  Congress.  As  the  military  governor  of  Tennessee, 
appointed  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  he  was  a  part  of  the  presidential 
scheme  of  Reconstruction. 

His  treatment  by  Tennessee.  The  treatment  he  had 
received  at  the  hands  of  the  dominant  element  in  his  State, 
incapacitated  him  to  fully  share  Mr.  Lincoln's  clemency  toward 
the  insurrectionary  vStates.  Having  sprung  from  the  lowlands 
of  humanity,  his  birth  and  education  excluded  him  from  the 
social  rank  which  controlled  affairs  in  his  own  State.  By 
dint  of  obstinate  courage  and  constant  application,  he  rose 
step  by  step  until  he  appeared  in  the  Senate  chamber  as  his 
State's  representative.  When  the  slavocracy  carried  his  State 
into  Secession  he  obstinately  and  courageously  refused  to  go 
with  it,  and  retained  his  scat  in  the  Senate,  supported  the 

361 


362  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

government  in  the  suppression  of  rebellion,  and  on  the  4th 
of  March,  1862,  resigned  his  seat  to  accept  the  military  govern- 
orship of  his  State  to  further  the  efforts  of  the  Union.  His 
denunciation  of  Secession  and  slavery  was  caustic.  His  bold 
stand  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Administration  party. 
His  unique  position  as  a  citizen  of  a  slave  State  which  had 
seceded,  his  refusal  to  abide  by  the  ordinance  of  Secession,  his 
acceptance  of  the  post  of  mihtary  governor  at  the  hands  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  assist  in  suppressing  the  insur- 
rection, rendered  him  a  logical  candidate  for  Vice-President 
in  the  Baltimore  convention.  On  the  first  ballot  he  was 
nominated  over  Hannibal  Hamhn,  the  then  present  incum- 
bent. It  is  not  probable  that  the  possibihty  of  his  succeeding 
to  the  presidency  had  entered  the  mind  of  any  considerable 
part  of  the  convention. 

His  utterances  on  the  death  of  Lincoln.  When  he  was 
inaugurated  as  the  third  accidental  President  he  revealed 
strong  feeling  against  the  leaders  of  rebelUon,  and  broke  out 
in  bitter  invective.  He  momentarily  employed  the  terms 
"treason"  and  ''traitors,"  and  more  than  once  pubHcly  pro- 
claimed that  traitors  must  meet  the  penalty  of  treason.  These 
rabid  utterances  had  a  double  effect.  They  pleased  the  radical 
wing  of  the  Administration,  who  told  him  in  language  more 
forcible  than  elegant,  that  they  beheved  in  him.  They  exult- 
ingly  announced  that  the  days  of  imbecile  weakness  were  at 
an  end.  To  the  conservative  element  of  the  country,  his  ut- 
terances suggested  unwise  severity  and  alarmed  many  leaders 
who  had  favored  the  policy  of  clemency  suggested  in  the  policy 
of  Mr.  Lincoln.  The  fears  of  the  latter  were  soon  allayed. 
Under  the  influence  of  his  great  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Seward, 
he  at  once  set  himself  to  the  task  of  Reconstruction.  It  was 
but  natural  that  under  the  influence  of  Lincoln's  Secretary  of 
State,  and  as  heir  to  Lincoln's  plan  of  Reconstruction,  he 
having  been  a  part  of  the  plan,  he  would  proceed  bn  the  line 
laid  down  by  his  predecessor.     He  determined  not   to    be 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      363 

hampered  in  this  work  by  summoning  Congress  in  special 
session. 

Efforts  to  complete  Lincoln's  work.  From  the  time  he  was 
inaugurated  to  the  convening  of  Congress,  eight  months,  he 
labored  unhampered  by  the  element  which  had  troubled 
Lincoln  and  which  had  professed  that  it  believed  in  Johnson. 
He  had  a  mind  that  did  its  own  thinking  and  a  will  that  dis- 
liked opposition.  Less  politic,  less  magnanimous  and  more 
arrogant  than  his  predecessor,  he  apparently  delighted  to  exer- 
cise his  authority  in  rehabihtation.  He  esteemed  the  task  of 
restoration  an  executive  function  and  he  proceeded  with  no 
hesitation.  A  repubhcan  government  for  each  State  was 
his  plea.  To  make  sure  of  it  he  appointed  for  each  State  a 
provisional  governor,  who  was  instructed  to  call  a  convention 
to  be  composed  of  loyal  delegates  who  had  accepted  and  ful- 
filled the  provisions  of  the  amnesty  proclamation  by  taking 
an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  government.  The  quahfications 
for  electors  for  this  convention  were  to  be  the  same  as  existed 
in  the  State  prior  to  the  ordinance  of  Secession,  which  in  the 
language  of  his  proclamation,  was  "a  power  the  people  of 
the  several  States  comprising  the  Federal  Union  have  right- 
fully exercised  from  the  origin  of  the  government  to  the 
present  time."  The  provisional  governor  was  to  have  the 
assistance  of  the  mihtary  commander  of  the  department  in 
which  the  State  was  located.  The  convention  was  required 
to  provide  for  the  abohtion  of  slavery.  On  this  basis  Recon- 
struction proceeded. 

Reconstruction  of  North  Carolina.  On  the  2gth  of  May, 
1865,  the  President  by  proclamation  announced  the  Recon- 
struction of  North  CaroHna.  It  stated  that  the  armed  forces 
of  the  Rebellion  had  been  overcome  and  that  it  was  the  Presi- 
dent's duty  to  enforce  the  constitutional  obligation  to  guar- 
antee to  each  State  a  republican  form  of  government.  In 
execution  of  his  plan,  he  appointed  William  W.  Holden  as 
mihtary  governor,  charged  with  the  duty  of  prescribing  "  rules 


364  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

for  convening  a  convention  to  be  composed  of  delegates  to  be 
chosen  from  that  portion  of  the  people  of  said  State,  who  were 
loyal  to  the  United  States  and  to  no  others,  for  the  purpose 
of  altering  or  amending  the  Constitution  thereof  and  with 
authority  to  exercise  within  the  limits  of  said  State  all  the 
powers  necessary  and  proper  to  enable  such  loyal  people  of  the 
State  of  North  Carohna  to  restore  said  State  to  its  constitu- 
tional relations  with  the  Federal  government,  and  to  present 
such  a  Republican  form  of  State  government  as  will  entitle 
the  State  to  the  guaranty  of  the  United  States  therefor  and 
its  people  to  protection  by  the  United  States  against  invasion, 
insurrection,  and  domestic  violence."  The  eligibility  of  an 
elector  or  a  member  of  the  convention  required  the  voter  or 
member  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  and  to  possess  such 
qualifications  as  were  required  by  the  State  constitution  prior 
to  the  time  of  Secession.  This  proclamation  serves  as  a  type 
to  explain  the  various  proclamations  issued  for  the  Reconstruc- 
tion of  all  the  States. 

Mississippi  and  other  States.  On  the  13th  day  of  June, 
1865,  the  proclamation  reconstructing  the  State  of  Mississippi 
was"  issued.  Four  days  later  the  plan  was  applied  to  Georgia 
and  Texas.  Before  the  end  of  the  month,  Alabama  and  South 
Carohna  were  reconstructed.  On  the  13th  day  of  July,  Florida 
was  authorized  to  proceed  to  form  a  State  government.  In  all 
the  States  the  military  commander  of  the  department  and  all 
the  miHtary  forces  were  ordered  to  aid  and  assist  the  pro- 
visional governor  in  carrying  into  effect  the  proclamation. 
They  were  enjoined  from  hindering  the  loyal  people  in  their 
organization  of  a  State  government  as  authorized  in  the  procla- 
mation. The  Secretary  of  State  was  directed  to  put  into  opera- 
tion all  laws  which  properly  belonged  to  his  department.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  directed  to  put  into  operation 
the  revenue  laws,  giving  preference  in  his  appointments  to  the 
loyal  citizens  residing  in  the  district.  The  postmaster-general 
was  directed  to  estabhsh  post-ofhces  and  post  routes  and  put 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES      365 

into  execution  the  postal  laws  of  the  Government  within  the 
State  reconstructed.  The  Attorney- General  was  directed  to 
apply  and  enforce  the  administration  of  justice  within  the 
State.  The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  was  directed  to  take 
possession  of  all  pubhc  property  belonging  to  the  Navy  Depart- 
ment within  the  State,  and  to  put  into  operation  the  laws  of 
Congress  relative  to  naval  affairs.  The  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  was  also  directed  to  put  into  operation  within  the  States 
the  laws  pertaining  to  his  department.  These  directions  were 
given  by  proclamation  on  the  21st  day  of  June,  1865.  Vari- 
ous proclamations  lifting  the  blockade  had  been  issued,  and 
by  midsummer  the  work  of  executive  Reconstruction  was 
approaching  consummation. 

Opposition  in  Congress.  The  39th  Congress  convened  in 
regular  session  on  the  4th  of  December.  At  least  two-thirds 
of  its  members  were  of  the  Republican  party  divided  between 
the  conservative  and  the  radical  factions  with  the  latter  pre- 
dominating. The  radical  faction  of  the  Upper  House  was  led 
by  Sumner  and  Wade,  and  in  the  Lower  House  by  Thaddeus 
Stevens.  Months  before  the  meeting  of  Congress,  rumors 
were  afloat  to  the  effect  that  at  the  opening  of  Congress  there 
would  be  a  sharp  difference  between  that  body  and  the  Presi- 
dent on  the  question  of  Reconstruction.  In  fact  the  wildest 
sort  of  rumors  had  spread  that  a  Southern  man  with  the  pre- 
tentions of  full  appreciation  of  the  fruits  of  the  war,  was  in 
reaHty  reconstructing  the  States  with  no  reference  to  the 
security  of  the  fruits.  What  were  the  fruits  referred  to,  is  not 
clear,  but  they  might  have  meant  the  permanent  lodgment 
in  authority  of  the  Republican  party,  or  they  might  ha\^e 
referred  to  the  greater  security  of  the  freedom  in  the  States. 
Both  of  these  reasons  were  offered  in  explanation. 

The  President's  mind  changing.  This  difference  between 
the  two  departments  of  the  government  was  intensified  by  the 
obvious  change  of  attitude  of  the  President.  At  the  time  of 
his  inauguration  the  public  was  greatly  concerned,  especially 


366  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

the  Democratic  part  of  it,  and  the  conservative  faction  of  the 
Repubhcan  part  of  it,  over  the  extreme  utterances  of  the 
President.  The  actual  work  of  Reconstruction  and  the  power- 
ful influence  of  Mr.  Seward  and  other  members  of  the  Cabinet, 
which  had  been  continued  from  the  Lincoln  administration, 
had  greatly  softened  the  obstinate  will  of  the  Executive.  Ere 
midsummer  the  men  who  had  publicly  welcomed  him  to  the 
presidency  were  charging  him  with  treasonable  purposes.  By 
the  time  that  the  39th  Congress  opened,  the  radical  wing  of  the 
party  in  power  was  well  sohdified  in  opposition  to  the  policy, 
if  not  to  the  person,  of  the  President. 

His  first  annual  message.  Great  interest  centered  in  the 
first  annual  message  of  Johnson,  which  he  sent  to  Congress  on 
the  4th  of  December.  It  set  forth  the  necessity  of  the  exer- 
cise of  the  national  prerogative,  and  also  with  equal  force,  the 
necessity  of  State  privilege  of  local  self-government.  Here 
was  an  attempt  to  adjust  the  seeming  confhct  between  the 
two  contending  forces  which  are  contingent  upon  all  govern- 
ment and  have  uniformly  been  the  cause  of  wars  in  all  countries 
where  all  vestige  of  the  rights  of  the  people  is  not  completely 
eliminated,  and  which  has  been  the  rational  basis  of  party 
division  in  all  countries  that  recognize  the  will  of  the  people 
as  an  element  in  government  —  the  message  declared  that 
our  system  of  government  required  both  these  principles: 
prerogative  in  the  nation  and  privilege  in  the  State.  The 
nation's  integrity  depended  upon  the  system  of  States. 
The  perpetuity  of  the  Constitution  brings  with  it  the 
perpetuity  of  the  States.  The  whole  cannot  exist  without  the 
part  and  vice  versa.  The  destruction  of  the  one  is  the  sure 
destruction  of  both.  The  message  then  propounded  the 
significant  question:  "Shall  the  States  be  held  as  conquered 
territory,  or  regarded  as  integral  States?"  It  declared  mili- 
tary government  unwise  inasmuch  as  it  placed  local  interests 
in  a  foreign  one-man  power,  which  implied  the  States  had 
ceased  to  be  States.      It  declared  all  acts  of  Secession  null 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      367 

and  void,  which  had  impaired  the  vitahty  of  their  consti- 
tutions but  did  not  extinguish  them;  which  suspended 
them  but  did  not  destroy  them.  The  President  then  informed 
Congress  what  had  been  accomphshed  toward  Reconstruction. 
Pardon  had  been  granted  to  all  persons  except  specified  classes, 
on  condition  of  such  persons  subscribing  to  an  oath  of  alle- 
giance. The  States  had  been  invited  to  amend  their  Con- 
stitutions to  adjust  themselves  to  the  conditions  arising  out 
of  the  war.  President  Johnson  frankly  admitted  that  the 
question  of  admitting  congressmen  to  seats  in  Congress  was 
for  the  two  Houses,  and  not  for  him,  to  determine.  He  argued 
against  the  exercise  of  national  authority  over  suffrage  in  the 
States,  and  expressed  his  behef  that  the  States  would  provide 
adequate  support  and  protection  for  the  freedmen. 

Reconstruction  committee  appointed.  On  the  first  day  of 
the  session  of  the  39th  Congress,  immediately  after  the  election 
of  the  Speaker  of  the  House,  and  before  the  receipt  of  the  Presi- 
dent's message,  Thaddeus  Stevens  introduced  a  resolution 
providing  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  fifteen,  nine 
from  the  House  and  six  from  the  Senate,  to  be  known  as  the 
Committee  on  Reconstruction,  whose  duty  it  was  to  report  on 
the  condition  of  the  States  lately  in  rebellion.  It  further 
provided  that  until  its  report  was  heard  no  member  from 
the  aforesaid  States  should  be  seated  as  representative  of  the 
States.  The  bill  was  passed  by  a  decisive  majority.  The 
Senate  offered  a  slight  amendment,  with  which  the  House 
readily  concurred.  Thus  under  the  constitutional  provision 
which  permits  each  House  to  be  judge  of  the  elections  and 
qualification  of  its  own  members,  Congress  nullified  all  that 
had  been  attempted  by  the  President  in  the  preceding  eight 
months. 

Two  reports  upon  the  South.  On  the  i8th  day  of  January, 
1866,  the  President  informed  the  Senate  upon  the  condition  in 
the  Southern  States.  At  the  time  Congress  provided  for  the 
appointment  of  the  Committee  of  Fifteen  to  report  on  the 


368  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

matter  of  Reconstruction,  the  President  had  requested  General 
Grant  to  report  on  the  condition  of  the  States  as  he  found  them 
in  his  tour  through  the  South.  Making  this  information  a 
basis  of  his  report,  he  declared  that  the  people  in  North  Caro- 
Hna,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana, 
Arkansas,  and  Tennessee,  had  reorganized  their  State  govern- 
ments and  were  yielding  obedience  to  the  cause  and  government 
of  the  United  States  with  more  willingness  and  greater 
promptitude  than  under  the  circumstances  could  reasonably 
have  been  anticipated.  The  President  also  reported  that  the 
13th  amendment  had  been  ratified  by  all  the  States  except 
Mississippi,  and  steps  had  been  taken  in  most  of  them  for  the 
comfort,  protection  and  security  of  the  freedmen.  Carl 
Schurz,  who  had  been  authorized  to  report  upon  the  condi- 
tion in  the  South,  saw  things  differently.  His  report  was 
adverse  to  the  South.  These  conflicting  reports  were  designed 
to  accentuate  the  points  of  difference  between  the  two  depart- 
ments of  government.  Naturally  the  President  relied  upon 
General  Grant,  his  informant,  while  Congress  relied  upon  Mr. 
Schurz.  The  difference  was  not  one  of  law  so  much  of  as  fact; 
and  the  fact  was  in  dispute,  with  testimony  of  equal  veracity 
oft'ered  on  both  sides. 

Indiscretion  of  certain  democratic  leaders.  The  breach  was 
greatly  widened  by  the  attitude  of  certain  members  of  the  op- 
position party  who  became  conspicuous  in  endorsing  the 
presidential  plan  of  Reconstruction.  The  sarcasm  formerly 
employed  against  the  Administration  was  now  used  against 
the  advocates  of  the  congressional  method  of  Reconstruction. 
The  limitations  of  human  nature  were  too  great  to  ignore  such 
attacks,  and  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  breach  between  the 
President  and  the  radical  element  of  Congress  coincided  with 
the  respective  Reconstruction  poHcies  of  the  two  parties, 
RepubHcan  and  Democratic,  which  at  the  time  unfairly  placed 
President  Johnson  with  the  men  who  but  a  short  time  before 
were  hunting  him  down  as  a  political  renegade. 


ORGAXIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      369 

Partizan  spirit.     It  was  too  much  to  expect  any  one  party  to 
monopolize  all  the  honor  to  be  achieved  in  the  work  of  rehabili- 
tation.   Every  man  of  commanding  influence  demanded  a  hand 
in  the  work.     It  was  but  natural  to  expect  the  men  who  had 
stood  by  the  policy  of  the  prosecution  of  the  war  to  a  \'igorous 
and  victorious  end,  to  demand  the  rights  of  determining  what 
should  be  the  plan  of  restoration,  and  also  to  see   to  its 
execution.     This  was  the  inevitable  result  of  a  partizan  gov- 
ernment.    Its  danger  was  that  it  would  likely  sacrifice  con- 
stitutional rights  for  the  sake  of  party  advantage.     The  party 
in  opposition  to  Mr.  Lincoln  stood  on  the  naked  rights  of  the 
States,    as    States,   to  have   representation   on  the  floor   of 
Congress  as  soon    as    they    discontinued    rebelhon    against 
the  authority  of  the  nation,  regardless  of  the  character  of  the 
statutory  enactments  in  the  various  States  with  regard  to  the 
control  of  the  freedmen.     The  party  in  power  insisted  upon 
specific  conditions  that  must  be  met  by  the  seceded  States 
before  their  members  could  be  admitted  to  the  floor  of  Con- 
gress.    The  friends  of  President  Johnson,  which  were  soon  to 
be  identified  with  the  opponents  of  the  party  which  had  elected 
him,  insisted  upon  the  fundamental  proposition  that  Seces- 
sion was  null  and  void;  that  no  State  on  its  own  motion  could 
leave  the  Union;  that  while  it  could  suspend  the  operations  of 
the  State  constitution,  it  was  still  a  State.     They  had  for 
authority  no  less  distinguished  a  man  than  President  Lincoln, 
who  had  virtually  said  the  same  thing.     Accordingly  they 
insisted  that  as  soon  as  the  Rebellion  was  suppressed,  a  State's 
representation  in  Congress  could  be  demanded  by  force  of 
the  Federal  Constitution.     In  reply,  the  radical  element  of  the 
Republican  party  held   that  by  voluntary  act  of  Secession, 
the  constitution  of  the  State  was  suspended,  and  by  act  of 
rebellion  the  State  became  subject  to  military  control,  and  by 
the  suppression  of  rebellion  the  State  representation  depended 
upon  the  will  of  the  nation,  and   not  upon  the  will  of  the 
Slate.     The  friends  of  the  President  pressed  the  question, 


370  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

"  What  specific  act  took  the  States  out  of  the  Union?"     The 
reply  was  a  rehearsal  of  the  horrors  of  war. 

Johnson's  view  of  the  status  of  the  States.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  public  documents  of  the  President  and  of  the 
debates  in  Congress,  shows  a  clear  distinction  between  the 
pohcy  of  the  President  and  that  of  the  dominant  element  in 
Congress.  The  President  held  that  the  ordinances  of  Seces- 
sion, being  null  and  void,  should  be  rescinded;  the  Confederate 
debt,  contracted  in  aid  of  the  Rebellion,  should  be  repudiated, 
at  least,  in  so  far  that  it  could  not  be  held  against  the  govern- 
ment; that  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  by  executive 
proclamation  having  been  required  as  a  war  measure  in  the 
suppression  of  the  rebellion,  the  States  must  necessarily  amend 
their  constitutions  in  accordance  with  the  proclamation. 
When  these  three  conditions  were  met,  the  States  could  not 
be  constitutionally  or  justly  required  to  do  more,  and  could 
therefore  demand  their  representation  in  Congress.  It  was 
asserted  that  this  much  and  no  more  could  be  demanded,  on  a 
basis  of  justice  and  constitutionahty. 

The  view  of  Congress.  The  dominant  element  in  Congress 
held  that  the  States,  in  addition  to  the  foregoing,  would  have 
to  guarantee  to  the  freedman  specific  privileges  and  rights. 
Just  what  rights  should  be  recognized  was  a  source  of  wide 
dispute.  There  were  those  who  were  satisfied  to  grant  him 
civil  rights,  namely:  the  rights  of  the  marriage  contract,  the 
rights  of  labor  contract  enabling  the  laborer  to  enter  into 
a  contract  to  perform  labor  and  to  sue  upon  it  to  enforce 
payment,  and  lastly,  to  secure  to  his  children  educational 
rights.  Then  there  were  those  like  Sumner  and  Stevens  who 
demanded  rights,  both  civil  and  poHtical,  if  not  social,  equal 
to  the  rights  of  the  white  population.  These  difi"erences  were 
finally  compromised  in  a  measure  identical  with  the  fourteenth 
amendment  later  imposed  upon  the  States.  This  defined 
citizenship  to  include  the  freedman.  It  granted  him  all  the 
rights  of  a  citizen.     It  further  demanded  for  him  the  right  of 


ORGAXIZATIOX  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES      371 

suffrage,  or  in  its  stead,  a  reduction  of  representation  in  Con- 
gress of  the  State  so  denying  suffrage,  in  the  proportion  of  the 
number  so  denied  to  the  voting  population  of  the  State,  in- 
cluding the  blacks  of  voting  age.  It  also  imposed  what  was 
known  as  the  "iron-clad  oath."  It  also  repudiated  the  Con- 
federate debt  and  confirmed  the  national  debt.  It  also  em- 
powered Congress,  by  appropriate  legislation,  to  carry  into 
effect  the  provisions  of  the  fourteenth  amendment. 

The  real  distinction.  Here  then  was  the  real  difference  of 
policy  between  the  two  departments;  a  difference  of  degree, 
not  of  kind.  In  Congress  the  debates  became  heated  and  at 
times  undignified,  in  the  course  of  which  the  President  came 
in  for  considerable  censure.  His  nature  incapacitated  him  to 
regard  such  censure  lightly.  He  frequently  reminded  Con- 
gress of  the  unique  situation  of  its  attempting  to  legislate  for 
the  whole  nation  with  eleven  States,  one-fourth  of  the  whole 
number,  unrepresented  in  the  body.  On  the  2  2d  day  of  June, 
1866,  in  a  message  to  Congress,  he  raised  the  question  as  to 
whether  a  Congress  which  had  refused  seats  to  the  representa- 
tives of  eleven  States,  all  of  which  had  been  reconstructed,  was 
a  legal  body.  He  reminded  the  country  of  the  suicidal  policy 
of  regarding  the  States  as  States  in  the  amendment  to  the 
Federal  Constitution  and  counting  them  in  order  to  satisfy 
the  constitutional  requirement  of  three-fourths  of  the  States 
necessary  to  ratify  an  amendment,  and  at  the  same  time  deny- 
ing their  status  as  States  in  legislation,  the  major  part  of 
which  concerned  them  most.  Upon  this  basis  largely,  he 
exercised  the  veto  power,  and  rejected  most  of  the  legislation 
of  the  39th  and  40th  Congresses. 

Veto  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  bill.  On  the  igth  day  of 
February,  1866,  Congress,  having  passed  a  bill  establishing  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau,  sent  it  to  the  President  for  his  signature. 
He  returned  it  with  his  objections.  He  stated  that  the  Rebel- 
lion was  at  an  end,  and  that  the  measure  was  as  inconsistent 
with  the  actual  condition  of  the  country  as  it  was  at  variance 


372  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  He  declared  that 
the  legislation  was  designed  to  prevent  the  former  slaves  from 
becoming  self-sustaining  and  was  therefore  vicious.  He  de- 
clared that  the  bill  was  passed  when  there  was  no  representa- 
tion from  the  eleven  States  in  the  Union  mainly  affected  by 
it,  and  reminded  Congress  that  American  ideas  of  liberty  for- 
bade taxation  without  representation.  The  bill,  however,  was 
passed  over  his  veto. 

Veto  of  the  Civil  Rights  bill.  On  the  27th  of  the  following 
March,  the  President  vetoed  the  bill  known  as  the  Civil 
Rights  bill.  This  bill  granted  to  the  freedmen  the  rights  to 
make  and  enforce  contracts;  to  sue,  be  parties,  and  give  evi- 
dence; to  inherit,  purchase,  lease,  sell,  hold  and  convey  real 
and  personal  property,  and  to  have  "full  and  equal  benefit 
of  all  laws  and  proceedings  for  the  security  of  person  and 
property  as  is  enjoyed  by  the  white  citizens."  His  objections 
were  to  the  clause  providing  for  the  equality  of  the  races,  and 
the  assumption  of  power  by  the  Federal  government  which 
properly  belonged  to  the  States. 

Proclamation  ending  the  war.  On  the  2d  of  the  following 
April,  by  proclamation,  he  formally  declared  the  war  at  end 
in  all  the  States  except  Texas.  The  proclamation  ending  the 
war  in  Texas  was  not  made  until  August  17,  1866. 

Second  annual  message.  On  the  3d  of  December,  he  sent 
to  Congress  his  second  annual  message.  It  was  largely 
devoted  to  a  defense  of  his  plan  of  Reconstruction  and  an 
argument  against  the  attitude  of  the  majority  of  Congress. 
It  plainly  revealed  what  was  known  to  all,  a  serious  rupture 
between  the  two  departments  of  the  government.  It  pointed 
out  the  status  of  the  States,  and  the  condition  of  the  freedmen 
as  the  immediate  causes  of  the  dispute.  He  repeated  his  view 
that  the  States  were  still  States  of  the  Union.  He  insisted 
that  the  status  of  the  freedmen  should  be  left  to  the  States 
chiefly  interested  and  not  to  the  Federal  government.  The 
message  directly  challenged  the  reconstruction  plans  of  Congress. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     373 

Situation  in  the  South  at  close  of  war.  When  the  Southern 
soldiers  returned  to  their  homes  at  the  close  of  the  war,  a 
serious  situation  confronted  them.  Their  country  was  devas- 
tated, their  wealth  was  gone,  their  money  was  worthless  and 
their  slaves  were  free.  Those  who  had  been  accustomed  to 
give  orders,  and  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  obey,  were  now  by 
the  law  equally  free.  The  war  had  thus  thrown  upon  the 
South  a  great  mass  of  people  recently  slaves  but  now  free. 
What  disposition  to  make  of  them,  was  the  supreme  question. 
The  former  condition  of  the  slaves  incapacitated  many  of 
them  to  become  self-sustaining  for  a  time,  if  ever.  Their 
presence  could  not  be  avoided,  their  continuance  as  slaves 
was  illegal,  and  as  freedmen  they  had  no  status  under  the 
civil  law.  At  once  many  of  the  States,  in  order  to  meet 
the  difficulty,  enacted  various  laws  under  the  name  of  va- 
grancy laws  which  virtually  re-enslaved  much  of  the  free 
population.  Some  of  these  laws  attached  a  penalty  to  idle- 
ness, so  arranged  that  the  culprit  under  the  law  was  as  unal- 
terably subject  to  the  order  of  his  master  as  if  he  were  still  in 
slavery.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  legislation  was  impera- 
tive. There  is  no  doubt  that  much  of  it  was  too  drastic,  and 
very  unwise.  The  knowledge  of  such  enactments  aroused  the 
radical  majority  in  Congress  and  won  for  it  support  that  would 
have  been  withheld  under  other  circumstances.  It  convinced 
the  majority  that  something  like  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  legis- 
lation was  imperative.  Notwithstanding  these  enactments 
among  the  earhest  acts  of  the  States,  the  President  insisted 
that  the  States  were  providing  adequate  protection  for  the 
freedmen.  To  this,  the  radicals  retorted  that  the  protection 
was  such  as  the  lion  affords  to  the  lamb.  They  pointed  out  a 
system  of  legal  slavery  in  the  South  nullifying,  under  a  penalty, 
the  amendment  of  the  Federal  Constitution  abolishing  slavery, 
by  which  system  the  South  not  only  ignored  the  laws,  but 
repudiated  the  Constitution  itself.  This  procedure  in  the 
Southern  States  so  inflamed  the  radicals,  and  so  weakened  the 


374  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

argument  of  the  conservatives,  that  the  former  soon  had  com- 
plete control  of  the  national  legislature. 

Another  veto.  Ten  days  after  the  meeting  of  Congress,  a 
bill  was  passed  to  extend  the  right  of  franchise  to  colored  per- 
sons residing  within  the  District  of  Columbia.  When  it 
reached  the  President  for  his  signature  he  vetoed  it.  His  mes- 
sage was  very  able.  He  declared  that  suffrage  was  not  neces- 
sary for  the  protection  of  the  negro,  and  that  it  would  not  aid 
a  loyal  sentiment,  "  for  local  governments  already  exist  of 
undoubted  fealty  to  the  government,  and  are  sustained  by 
communities  which  were  among  the  first  to  testify  their  devo- 
tion to  the  Union."  The  President  deplored  the  conflict  of 
opinion  between  himself  and  Congress,  He  would  not  allow 
any  one  to  go  beyond  him  in  the  principle  of  suffrage,  but 
declared  that  to  give  it  indiscriminately  to  a  new  class,  wholly 
unprepared  by  habits  to  possess  it,  would  be  to  degrade,  and 
finally  destroy  it.  The  frequency  of  the  exercise  of  the  veto 
power  and  the  expression  of  doubt  as  to  whether  Congress,  with 
one-fourth  of  the  States  unrepresented  was  a  constitutional 
body,  caused  bitter  remarks  from  men  on  all  sides  of  the  con- 
troversy. The  President  goaded  by  the  acrimonious  attack 
upon  him  finally  gave  way  to  his  feelings.  On  the  27th  of 
February,  1867,  he  made  a  public  address  in  Washington,  in 
which  he  descended  to  the  use  of  personalities.  He  said  he 
had  fought  traitors  in  the  South,  and  intimated  he  could  and 
would  fight  them  in  Congress.  He  used  the  name  of  Thaddeus 
Stevens,  and  gave  the  people  to  understand  he  looked  upon 
Stevens  as  a  traitor. 

Work  of  the  39th  Congress.  The  whole  time  of  the  39th 
Congress  was  mostly  occupied  with  the  Southern  question. 
Early  in  the  session  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction  reported 
a  plan  which  was  debated  and  amended,  until  the  30th  of 
April  when  a  plan  incorporating  the  14th  amendment  was 
reported  to  the  House  by  Thaddeus  Stevens.  Both  Houses 
had  agreed  that  no  member  should  be  admitted  to  seats  from 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     375 

the  so-called  seceded  States  until  the  matter  had  been  decided. 
Finally  on  the  13  th  day  of  June  both  Houses  agreed  upon  what 
should  constitute  the  14th  amendment,  and  it  also  agreed 
that  when  any  State  had  ratified  the  same,  its  representatives 
should  be  admitted  to  Congress.  Tennessee  at  once  ratified 
it,  and  was  declared  restored  to  its  "proper  practical  rela- 
tions" in  the  United  States.  When  the  bill  restoring  Tennes- 
see (the  14th  amendment  was  not  presented  to  the  President 
for  his  signature)  was  presented  to  the  President  he  said, 
"  My  approval  is  not  to  be  construed  as  an  acknowledgment 
of  the  right  of  Congress  to  pass  laws  preliminary  to  the  admis- 
sion of  duly  quahfied  representatives  from  any  of  the  States." 
The  remaining  States  decHned  to  ratify  the  amendment,  thus 
rejecting  the  congressional  plan  of  reconstruction. 

Crisis  in  the  Cabinet.  In  the  meantime  the  President, 
imitating  his  great  predecessor,  thought  to  appeal  to  the 
people.  A  new  Congress  was  to  be  elected  and  in  this  manner 
he  could  submit  the  case  to  the  final  jury.  His  administra- 
tion was  on  trial,  and  he  passionately  desired  vindication.  A 
crisis  had  already  been  reached  in  his  Cabinet.  Three  of  the 
members,  Speed,  Dennison  and  Harlan,  had  resigned.  To 
counteract  any  evil  effects  a  great  national  convention  of  the 
friends  of  the  President  was  held  in  Philadelphia  on  the  14th 
day  of  August.  It  was  composed  of  Administration  Republi- 
cans and  Democrats.  The  purpose  of  the  convention  was  to 
unify  all  the  advocates  of  the  presidential  plan  of  both  parties. 
It  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions  endorsing  the  President's 
attitude,  and  declared  that  Congress  had  no  right  to  deny 
representation  to  any  State.  It  was  a  national  gathering, 
every  State  of  the  Union  being  represented. 

Convention  of  friends  of  President.  About  one  month 
later  another  convention,  composed  chiefly  of  soldiers,  met 
in  Cleveland,  on  behalf  of  the  President.  The  key-note  was 
expressed  by  its  chairman  General  Wool  when  he  exclaimed, 
"Let  us  have  peace!"     In  both  of  these  great  gatherings  it 


376  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

was  plain  that  the  main  support  of  the  President  would  come 
from  the  ranks  of  the  party  opposed  to  him  in  the  preceding 
presidential  election.  This  fact  identified  his  cause  with  the 
Democratic  party,  and  resulted  in  the  rapid  consoHdation  of 
the  Republican  party  against  him. 

Convention  of  those  opposed  to  him.  On  the  3d  of  Septem- 
ber, the  element  in  the  Southern  States  opposed  to  the  Presi- 
dent met  in  convention  in  Philadelphia.  They  elected  his 
former  Attorney-general,  James  Speed,  of  Kentucky,  chair- 
man. He  roused  the  convention  to  a  frenzy  by  his  unexpected 
and  bitter  attack  upon  his  former  chief  He  told  the  dele- 
gates that  their  last  hope  was  in  the  firmness  of  the  States 
that  had  given  their  vote  to  Lincoln  as  against  Davis,  that  the 
President  had  resorted  to  weapons  of  traitors  to  beat  down 
patriots.  No  indictment  of  the  President  equal  to  this  had 
been  made  publicly.  The  resolutions  of  the  convention  as 
strongly  condemned  the  President  as  those  of  former  conven- 
tions had  endorsed  him.  Eight  days  after  the  soldiers'  con- 
vention in  Cleveland,  a  convention  of  citizen  soldiers  opposed 
to  the  President's  policy  was  held  in  Pittsburg.  John  A. 
Logan  was  selected  chairman,  but  in  his  absence  General  Cox 
of  Ohio  presided.  The  resolutions  were  presented  by  Benja- 
min F.  Butler.  The  enthusiasm  of  this  convention  was  tre- 
mendous. 

"  Swinging  around  the  circle."  In  September  the  Presi- 
dent made  a  trip  to  Chicago,  delivering  several  speeches  in 
various  cities  on  the  way.  He  pubhcly  declared  that  Congress 
was  not  the  Congress,  but  only  a  part  of  it.  As  it  was  then 
constituted  it  was  a  body  unknown  to  the  law  or  the  Consti- 
tution. His  extreme  utterances  militated  against  his  cause. 
The  election  which  followed  was  a  sweeping  condemnation  of 
his  policy  and  a  pronounced  vindication  of  the  party  in  power. 

Radical  measures  of  Congress.  Emboldened  by  the  result 
of  the  election  and  goaded  by  the  summary  rejection  of  the 
14th  amendment  by  the  South  as  the  condition  for  restoration, 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      377 

the  radicals  reported  in  February,  1867,  a  plan  of  Reconstruc- 
tion which  placed  the  former  rebellious  States  under  military 
control.  In  the  meantime,  to  avoid  the  possibility  of  the 
President's  neutrahzing  the  effect  of  the  measure  through  the 
power  of  removal,  a  bill  dictated  by  Stanton  was  passed  to 
regulate  the  tenure  of  office  of  certain  officers.  This  bill 
denied  to  the  President  the  authority  to  remove  any  officer 
w^hose  appointment  required  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  with- 
out securing  the  consent  of  the  Senate  to  such  removal.  The 
bill  went  to  the  President  for  his  signature  on  the  2d  day 
of  March,  1867,  less  than  a  month  after  the  Reconstruction 
bill  was  reported  to  the  House  for  debate.  The  bill  was  vetoed. 
The  veto  message  was  a  forcible  presentation  of  the  powers  of 
the  President  in  the  premises.  He  made  it  clear  that  the 
power  of  removal  was  essential  to  a  responsible  head.  Effec- 
tive administration  depended  upon  the  power  of  control  over 
its  subordinates.  He  showed  that  such  had  been  the  policy 
of  the  government  from  the  beginning.  He  ably  argued  that 
the  government  would  be  crippled  in  the  degree  that  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  departments  was  interrupted  by  any  one 
department  invading  the  other.  Notwithstanding  the  cogent 
argument,  the  Senate  and  House  were  not  in  a  humor  to  hear 
constitutional  law  lectures  from  the  President  and  they  passed 
the  bill  over  his  veto  by  an  overwhelming  vote.  By  this 
attitude  it  was  clear  that  Congress  had  set  out  to  reconstruct 
the  States  in  spite  of  the  President,  and  in  case  they  found  it 
necessary  they  would  bury  all  scruples  on  the  constitutionality 
of  an  issue  and  force  their  reconstruction  measures  through. 

The  Reconstruction  measure.  On  the  same  day,  March  2, 
the  famous  Reconstruction  measure  was  presented  to  him 
for  his  signature.  It  declared  in  its  preamble  that  no  proper 
State  government  existed  in  any  of  ten  States.  It  provided 
that  the  ten  States  should  be  divided  into  five  military  dis- 
tricts, specifying  each.  It  made  it  the  duty  of  the  President 
to  assign  to  each  district  an  army  officer,  not  below  the  rank  of 


378  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

brigadier-general,  with  sufficient  military  force  to  enforce  his 
decrees.  His  duties  were  thus  defined:  to  maintain  order,  to 
protect  all  persons  in  their  rights,  and  to  create  military  com- 
missions to  try  offenses  where  local  civil  process  is  insufficient. 
The  bill  provided  against  unusual  and  cruel  punishment  and 
against  the  execution  of  a  sentence  affecting  the  life  or  Hberty 
of  a  person  without  the  approval  of  the  commanding  officer. 
The  approval  of  the  President  was  required  for  the  execution 
of  the  death  sentence.  The  bill  provided  for  the  discontin- 
uance of  the  mihtary  rule,  by  allowing  the  State  so  affected  to 
adopt  a  State  constitution  in  conformity  with  the  Federal 
Constitution.  It  required  that  such  constitution  should  be 
framed  by  a  convention  of  delegates  elected  by  the  male 
citizens  of  the  State  twenty-one  years  old,  or  over,  of  whatever 
race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude,  except  such  as 
may  have  been  disfranchised  by  participation  in  rebellion; 
that  such  constitution  shall  provide  that  the  elective  franchise 
shall  be  enjoyed  by  all  such  persons  as  have  the  qualifications 
herein  stated  for  electors;  that  when  the  constitution  shall 
have  been  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  citizens  qualified  to 
vote,  and  when  Congress  shall  have  approved  of  the  same,  and 
when  the  State  shall  have  approved  of  the  14th  amendment, 
said  State  shall  be  entitled  to  representation  in  Congress. 

Veto  message.  The  President  at  once  vetoed  the  bill  in  a 
message  strikingly  strong.  However,  it  added  but  little  to 
what  he  had  already  said  in  previous  messages.  His  point, 
that  the  bill  enfranchised  the  negro  and  disfranchised  the  white 
man,  which  reversed  the  relation  of  the  races,  was  forcibly 
presented.  However,  it  had  httle  if  any  effect  upon  the 
majority  of  Congress  who  were  not  in  a  humor  to  grant  much 
respect  to  the  President.  The  bill  was  passed  over  the  Presi- 
dent's veto,  and  the  famous  Reconstruction  measure  which  had 
occupied  the  attention  of  the  whole  country  for  more  than 
two  years,  became  a  law.  The  President's  hands  were  com- 
pletely tied,  and  the  South  was  left  to  the  alternative  of  sub- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     379 

mitting  to  the  conditions  of  the  14th  amendment,  which  all  the 
States  except  Tennessee  had  previously  rejected,  or  submit  to 
martial  law.  The  history  of  Reconstruction  legislation  shows 
the  extent  to  which  men's  passions  may  carry  them.  When 
the  question  first  came  up,  all  that  was  demanded  by  Congress 
was  the  amendment  abolishing  slavery,  repudiation  of  the 
Confederate  debt,  and  the  grant  of  ci\dl  rights  to  the  freedmen. 
In  the  conflict  with  the  President,  it  finally  ended  in  placing 
the  States  under  martial  law.  This  extremity  measured  the 
tenacity  of  two  departments  for  a  specific  plan.  Two  other 
supplementary  acts  to  remedy  certain  defects  in  the  Recon- 
struction measure  were  passed,  vetoed,  and  passed  over  the 
veto. 

Third  annual  message.  On  the  3d  of  December,  1867, 
President  Johnson  sent  his  third  annual  message  to  Congress. 
It  was  clearly  the  strongest  exposition  of  his  position.  He 
declared  that  there  was  no  Union  such  as  our  fathers  under- 
stood it;  no  such  Union  can  exist  except  when  all  the  States 
are  represented  in  Congress.  He  repeated  his  oft-expressed 
dictum  that  the  Union  and  the  Constitution  were  inseparable. 
If  one  is  destroyed,  they  both  perish.  He  declared  his  plan  of 
restoration  as  a  plain,  simple  appHcation  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  laws.  He  declared  that  there  was  not  a  single  place 
in  the  country  where  the  Federal  authority  was  interrupted, 
and  under  the  circumstances  the  mihtary  regime  of  Congress 
was  dangerous  to  the  welfare  of  the  people.  He  argued  at 
length  that  the  States  lately  in  rebelHon  were  still  members  of 
the  Union;  that  the  fact  had  been  acknowledged  by  all  branches 
of  the  government;  that  the  right  of  the  government  to  enforce 
the  Constitution  upon  these  States  impHed  the  obligation  to 
observe  its  Hmitations,  not  to  deny  self-government  to  them; 
the  honor  of  the  government  was  at  stake  to  fulfil  its  pledge 
of  July  22,  1 86 1.  He  declared  the  Reconstruction  measures 
unconstitutional,  and  designed  to  subvert  all  local  self- 
government,  by  enforcing  under  military  control   a  system 


380  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

which  would  place  the  less  competent  over  the  competent 
population. 

Ominous  language.  One  sentence  startled  the  radical 
wing  of  Congress  and  the  country.  His  exact  words  were, 
"  It  is  true  that  cases  may  occur  in  which  the  Executive  would 
be  compelled  to  stand  on  his  rights,  and  maintain  them  regard- 
less of  all  consequences."  By  some,  this  sentence  was  taken 
to  mean  that  the  President  might  take  personal  command  of 
the  military  forces  and  control  the  government  regardless  of 
the  wishes  of  Congress.  Within  a  month  an  attempt  was  made 
to  impeach  him  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors.  Nothing 
definite  was  done  until  the  7th  of  July,  when  James  M. 
Ashley  of  Ohio  formally  preferred  charges  against  him.  It 
was  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee,  which  heard  the 
testimony  and  then  reported.  The  testimony  and  report  of 
the  committee  fill  a  massive  volume.  The  testimony  failed  to 
support  the  chargQS  and  nothing  more  was  heard  of  it  until  the 
President  suspended  Secretary  Stanton. 

Suspension  of  Stanton.  On  the  12th  of  August,  1867, 
relations  between  the  President  and  his  Secretary  of  War 
having  become  seriously  strained,  the  President  in  accordance 
with  the  Tenure  of  Office  Law  suspended  him  and  appointed 
Lieutenant-general  Grant  secretary  ad  interim.  Upon  the 
convening  of  Congress,  the  Senate  was  instructed  as  to  the 
grounds  upon  which  the  President  had  acted  and  was  asked 
to  confirm  the  suspension.  This  was  in  accordance  with  the 
Tenure  of  Office  Law  in  cases  where  removals  were  attempted 
during  the  recess  of  the  Senate.  After  a  short  deliberation 
upon  the  causes  of  the  suspension  the  Senate  refused  to  concur, 
whereupon  General  Grant  left  the  post  and  Secretary  Stanton 
resumed  his  duties  as  Secretary  of  W^ar.  The  President  was 
gravely  displeased  that  General  Grant  did  not  retain  his  post 
in  accordance  with  the  President's  expressed  desire,  and  thus 
force  the  issue  into  the  courts  to  test  the  constitutionality  of 
the  Tenure  of  Office  Law,  which  he  pronounced  unwarranted 


U.  S.  Grant 


381 


382  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

by  any  sanction  in  the  Constitution.  This  difference  between 
the  President  and  his  heutenant-general  unified  the  element 
in  opposition  to  the  President,  in  support  of  General  Grant 
for  the  presidency  in  1868. 

Removal  of  Stanton.  On  the  21st  of  February,  1868,  the 
President  ordered  the  removal  of  Secretary  Stanton  and 
appointed  in  his  stead  Lorenzo  Thomas.  This  was  the 
occasion  much  desired  by  the  radicals  in  and  out  of  Congress. 
They  charged  that  it  was  the  beginning  of  his  attempt  to 
carry  into  effect  his  threat  to  rule  regardless  of  the  laws,  on 
the  ground  that  Congress  as  it  was  then  constituted  was  not  a 
legal  body.  It  was  recalled  that  he  had  said  in  his  veto  mes- 
sage of  the  19th  of  July,  1867, "  Whilst  I  hold  the  chief  executive 
authority  of  the  United  States,  whilst  the  obligation  rests 
upon  me  to  see  that  all  the  laws  are  faithfully  executed,  I  can 
never  willingly  surrender  that  trust  or  the  powers  given  for 
its  execution."  It  was  also  recalled  that  he  had  often  ex- 
pressed his  doubts  of  the  legality  of  the  national  legislature  as  it 
was  then  constituted.  His  extravagant  use  of  the  veto  power, 
and  his  repeated  reminders  in  his  messages  and  his  public 
announcements  that  he  would  veto  all  their  measures  sent 
to  him,  convinced  at  least  a  portion  of  Congress  that  the 
removal  of  Stanton  was  evidence  of  his  intention  to  disregard 
such  laws  of  Congress  as  he  disliked. 

Impeachment  of  Johnson.  Three  days  after  the  removal 
of  Stanton,  the  House  of  Representatives  resolved  to  impeach 
him  for  high  misdemeanors,  and  so  notified  the  Senate.  On 
the  2d  and  3d  of  March  articles  of  impeachment  were  agreed 
upon,  and  on  the  4th  they  were  presented  to  the  Senate  by  the 
House  managers.  The  charges  were  couched  in  eleven  resolu- 
tions. The  last  resolution  was  made  the  test  upon  which  the 
case  was  tried.     It  charged  the  President: 


"»^ 


I.  That  he  had  publicly  declared  in  the  city  of  Washington  on  the 
eighteenth  day  of  August,  1866,  that  the  thirty-ninth  Congress  was 
not  a  Congress  authorized  by  the  Constitution. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      383 

2.  He  therefore  denied  in  substance  the  legaUty  of  its  acts,  and 
refused  to  be  bound  by  them. 

3.  In  pursuance  of  this,  on  the  twenty-first  day  of  P^bruary,  1868,  in 
defiance  of  the  law  regulating  the  tenure  of  ofiice  of  certain  officers,  passed 
on  the  second  of  March,  1867,  he  attempted  to  remove  Edwin  M.  Stan- 
ton, Secretary  of  War,  notwithstanding  the  Senate  had  refused  to  con- 
cur in  his  suspension  from  said  office. 

4.  He  attempted  to  devise  means  whereby  he  might  prevent  the  exe- 
cution of  the  act  to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the  rebel 
States. 

Upon  these  grounds  he  was  indicted  by  the  House  of 
Representatives  as  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor.  The  trial 
before  the  Senate,  sitting  as  a  Court,  with  Chief  Justice  Chase 
as  presiding  officer,  was  one  of  the  most  notable  in  the  history 
of  the  country.  It  was  ably  conducted  on  both  sides,  but 
especially  on  the  side  of  the  President.  He  had  the  advantage 
of  the  best  legal  abihty  in  the  nation  headed  by  WilKam  M. 
Evarts  of  New  York.  Congress  had  many  able  lawyers  at 
the  time,  but  none  whose  keen  insight  into  constitutional  law 
equaled  the  great  array  marshaled  on  behalf  of  the  President. 
The  prosecution  was  in  the  hands  of  Bingham,  Boutwell,  Wil- 
son, Butler,  WilHams,  Logan  and  Stevens.  The  defense  was 
made  by  Stanbery,  Curtis,  Black,  Evarts  and  Nelson. 

The  defense.  The  defense  was  a  specific  denial  that  the 
removal  of  Stanton  was  in  violation  of  the  Tenure  of  Office 
Law,  on  the  ground  that  Stanton  was  not  an  appointee  of 
Johnson,  but  of  Lincoln.  While  the  law  would  have  forbidden 
Lincoln  to  remove  him,  it  did  not  apply  to  Johnson.  On  the 
1 6th  of  May,  the  vote  of  the  Senate  was  taken  on  the  eleventh 
article.  The  roll  was  called  and  each  senator  as  his  name  was 
called  arose  to  answer,  "  guilty  "  or  "  not  guilty,"  as  he  was  con- 
vinced. Thirty-five  voted  guilty,  and  nineteen  voted  not 
guilty.  The  prosecution  fell  short  one  vote  to  convict  the 
President  of  high  misdemeanors,  and  the  country  was  saved 
the  unspeakable  shame  of  the  removal  of  its  Chief  Executive 
by  impeachment  proceedings. 


384  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Completion  of  Reconstruction.  Meanwhile  the  States  which 
had  seceded,  having  no  other  alternative  than  to  comply  with 
the  Reconstruction  provisions  of  Congress  or  remain  under 
martial  authority,  one  by  one,  ratified  the  14th  amendment 
and  compHed  with  the  other  requirements  for  restoration. 
Arkansas  was  the  first  to  respond.  Congress  at  once  passed 
a  law  admitting  the  State  to  representation  in  Congress.  It 
was  sent  to  the  President  on  the  20th  of  June,  a  month  after 
the  impeachment  proceedings  had  closed.  The  President  at 
once  vetoed  the  bill  on  the  grounds  that  his  approval  would  be 
taken  as  an  approval  of  the  Reconstruction  measures  which  he 
declared  in  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution.  Five 
days  later  he  vetoed  a  similar  bill  for  the  admission  to  represen- 
tation in  Congress  of  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Louisi- 
ana, Georgia,  Alabama  and  Florida.  Both  of  these  bills  were 
promptly  passed  over  his  veto. 

His  last  annual  message.  Congress  had  also  passed  a  bill 
and  sent  it  to  the  President,  excluding  from  the  electoral  col- 
lege the  States  which  had  not  been  reorganized.  The  Presi- 
dent promptly  vetoed  it,  and  it  was  as  promptly  passed  over 
his  veto.  On  the  4th  of  July  the  President  issued  his 
proclamation,  granting  unconditional  and  unreserved  pardon 
to  "all  and  to  every  person  who,  directly  or  indirectly,  par- 
ticipated in  the  late  insurrection  or  rebellion,  excepting  such 
persons  or  persons  as  may  be  under  presentment  or  indict- 
ment for  treason  or  felony."  On  the  9th  of  December,  he 
issued  his  fourth  and  last  annual  message.  He  referred  to  the 
condition  of  the  disorganization  under  the  Reconstruction  laws. 
He  reminded  Congress  that  States  which  had  a  right  to  a 
republican  form  of  government  had  been  reduced  to  military 
dependencies;  that  three  States,  Virginia,  Texas  and  Missis- 
sippi, were  still  unrepresented  in  Congress,  and  contrary  to  an 
expressed  provision  of  the  Constitution,  had  been  denied  the 
right  to  participate  in  the  last  election  for  President  and  Vice- 
President.     He  said  the  congressional  poUcy  had  disturbed 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      385 

the  relations  between  the  races  until  the  peace  of  the  nation 
was  again  in  danger.  He  called  for  the  repeal  of  the  Recon- 
struction measures,  the  Tenure  of  Office  bill,  and  other  past 
legislation  designed  to  curtail  the  constitutional  prerogative 
of  the  President.  On  the  13th  of  February,  he  vetoed  a  bill 
relative  to  the  colored  schools  of  Georgetown  and  Washington, 
and  on  the  2  2d  another  bill  regulating  the  duties  upon  imported 
copper  and  copper  ores. 

His  vetoes.  On  the  19th  of  February,  1866,  Mr.  Johnson 
issued  his  first  veto  message,  when  he  vetoed  the  Freed- 
men's  Bureau  bill.  During  that  year  he  vetoed  five  other 
important  measures.  In  1867  he  vetoed  seven  others,  in  the 
next  year  six  others,  and  up  to  February  22,  1869,  two  more. 
Most  of  these  bills  were  promptly  passed  over  his  veto. 

One  view.  The  Civil  War  left  the  nation  wounded  and  bleed- 
ing. The  Restoration  period  was  bloodless,  but  it  involved 
a  bitterness  unknown  during  the  period  of  war.  Opinion  will 
remain  divided  on  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  the  legisla- 
tion of  that  period.  That  portion  of  the  South  which  sup- 
ported the  RebelHon  will  see  no  excuse  for  the  attitude  of  the 
dominant  party  in  Congress.  In  the  North  there  will  always 
remain  a  considerable  element  in  unison  with  the  Southern 
opinion.  They  will  \'indicate  Johnson  as  an  Executive  who 
was  true  to  his  party  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Lincoln,  and  as 
one  who  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  his  great  predecessor. 
They  will  endorse  him  as  the  exponent  of  constitutional 
rights  guaranteed  to  the  States,  and  will  quote  his  numerous 
messages  as  masterful  treatises  upon  these  rights. 

Second  view.  On  the  other  hand,  there  will  be  found 
throughout  the  States,  those  who  will  hold  that,  had  not  the 
Southern  States  enacted  laws  virtually  securing  to  them  what 
they  had  failed  to  secure  by  rebellion,  restoration  would  have 
been  conducted  upon  lines  of  extreme  clemency:  namely,  an 
oath  of  allegiance,  abolition  of  slavery  and  a  repudiation  of  the 
Confederate  debt.     But  the  attitude  of  those  States  caused 


386  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

the  powers  in  Congress  to  change  their  policy  of  clemency  for 
one  demanding  Federal  protection  of  the  Freedmen,  a  policy 
finally  expressed  in  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  Act,  and  the  Civil 
Rights  bill  of  1866.  By  the  offensive  attitude  on  the  part  of 
the  South  toward  these  measures,  the  14th  amendment  was 
required  in  1867.  By  the  almost  unanimous  rejection  by  the 
South  of  this  amendment  as  a  condition  of  restoration,  the 
culmination  of  placing  the  States  under  martial  law  was 
reached,  to  remain  in  that  situation  until  the  conditions  of 
restoration  were  complied  with. 

The  War's  imposition.  All  this  was  done  on  the  ground  that 
the  government  was  under  imperative  duty  to  protect  the 
population  which  the  war  had  left  without  legal  status.  It 
was  the  legitimate  result  of  war.  The  penalty  was  severe, 
but  not  more  severe  than  the  offense.  Those  people  holding 
to  the  opinion  that  the  penalty  was  extreme,  place  the  cause 
of  its  severity  upon  President  Johnson,  rather  than  upon  the 
people  of  the  South.  They  charge  him  with  a  desire  at  first, 
then  a  determined  purpose,  to  thwart  the  plan  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States  through  their  representatives  to  secure 
the  fruits  of  the  war,  simply  because  their  plan  did  not  coincide 
with  his.  To  this  end  he  touched  the  two  extremes.  He 
denounced  the  leaders  of  rebellion  as  traitors  and  pledged 
himself  to  bring  them  to  speedy  justice,  then  he  swung  to  the 
other  extreme  and  pardoned  them  all  without  qualification 
or  reservation,  save  those  who  were  under  indictment.  Mr. 
Johnson's  Democratic  propensities,  which  prior  to  the  war  had 
identified  him  with  the  party  of  that  name,  won  for  him  the 
sympathy  as  well  as  the  support  of  the  Democratic  party  on 
the  restoration  question.  The  point  of  division  between  him 
and  Congress  was  identical  with  that  which  separated  the 
Republican  and  Democratic  parties.  In  view  of  this  fact  he 
was  justified  in  hoping  to  secure  the  nomination  for  the  presi- 
dency from  their  hands.  The  elections  of  1866  left  no  doubt 
about  the  attitude  of  the  RejDublicans  toward  him.     But  his 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     387 

record  precluded  his  acceptance  by  the  Democrats.  While 
they  endorsed  his  theory,  they  refused  to  handicap  them- 
selves by  taking  as  their  candidate  one  whose  record  fur- 
nished so  much  evidence  of  political  apostasy. 

Its  effect  upon  the  Democratic  party.  The  war  had  left 
the  Democratic  party  in  such  a  state  of  disintegration  that 
it  sought  to  strengthen  itself  wherever  it  was  possible.  Chief 
Justice  Chase  was  desired  by  them  as  a  candidate,  but  his 
attitude  with  regard  to  universal  freedom  and  manhood 
suffrage  did  not  correspond  with  the  record  of  the  party  in 
recent  years.  The  [greenback  scheme  of  Pendleton  appealed 
to  the  party  and  made  him  a  formidable  candidate  before  the 
convention,  but  the  former  attitude  of  the  party,  in  opposition 
to  the  issuance  of  greenback  currency,  denied  it  the  opportu- 
nity to  make  a  campaign  upon  that  issue.  The  party  wisely 
nominated  Horatio  Seymour  of  New  York,  and  made  a  cam- 
paign upon  distinctive  war  issues,  the  Reconstruction  meas- 
ures of  the  Repubhcan  Congress.  This  enabled  the  party  to 
adopt  the  theory  of  the  rights  of  the  States,  the  hberty  of 
the  individual,  and  special  privileges  to  none,  all  of  which 
were  Jeffersonian.  The  Republican  convention  unanimously 
nominated  General  Grant  upon  a  platform  endorsing  the  meas- 
ures of  Reconstruction,  and  favoring  the  amendments  of  the 
Constitution  granting  liberty,  civil  rights,  and  the  rights  of 
suffrage  to  the  freedmen. 

Its  partizan  effect.  Thus  the  war  left  two  distinct  parties 
in  existence,  the  Republican  and  the  Democratic,  divided  in 
theory  upon  lines  similar  to  those  that  separated  the  two  par- 
ties at  the  beginning  of  our  national  history.  With  regard 
to  the  colored  man,  the  Hamiltonian  party  exercised  central 
authority  to  the  extent  of  compelHng  the  States  to  grant  hb- 
erty and  equality  to  him.  The  immediate  result  of  this  policy 
was  disastrous  to  the  people  of  the  South,  and  the  poHtical  result 
was  the  deepening  of  sectional  (Hfferences  which  for  half  a  cen- 
tury have  produced  a  "Solid  South  "  and  a  "United  North." 


CHAPTER  XIX 

WAR  AMENDMENTS 

The  free  colored  population.  At  the  opening  of  the  Civil 
War  the  negro  population  of  the  United  States  was  about 
4,500,000  of  which  nearly  500,000  were  free.  This  latter  class 
was  principally  confined  to  the  free  States,  although  from  colo- 
nial times  all  the  slave  States  held  some  free  colored  people. 
Their  presence  in  the  slave  States  somewhat  complicated  the 
problem.  Their  number  in  Virginia,  according  to  the  census 
reports,  was  as  follows:  12,766  in  1790;  20,124  in  1800;  30,- 
570  in  1810;  36,899  in  1820;  47,348  in  1830;  49,852  in  1840; 
54,333  in  1850;  and  58,042  in  i860.  The  presence  of  this  con- 
siderable element  was  looked  upon  as  a  standing  menace  to 
the  peace  of  the  community.  Sedition  was  the  probable  result 
of  a  commingling  of  a  free  and  a  slave  negro  population.  It 
is  believed  that  the  various  slave  insurrections  can  be  traced 
to  the  influence  of  the  free  negroes. 

Negro  insurrection.  There  are  at  least  three  historic 
negro  insurrections  in  the  history  of  slavery  in  the  South.  The 
first  is  known  as  the  Gabriel  insurrection  which  occurred  in 
1800,  near  Richmond,  Virginia.  About  1,100  negroes  took  part. 
It  was  suppressed  and  the  leaders  were  promptly  executed. 

The  second  insurrection  occurred  in  1822,  in  Charleston, 
South  Carolina,  and  was  called  the  Mesey  insurrection,  after 
one  Denmark  Mesey,  a  remarkable  negro.  More  than  1,000 
negroes  came  from  all  parts  to  form  into  eight  divisions,  to 
do  a  specific  piece  of  work.     By  timely  effort  it  was  suppressed 

388 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      389 

and  thirty-five  leaders  were  executed,  with  thirty-four  others 
who  were  active  in  the  insurrection. 

The  most  important  of  all  these  insurrections  is  the  Nat 
Turner  insurrection  in  Virginia.  It  attained  to  such  dimen- 
sions that  both  the  State  militia  and  a  detail  of  regular  soldiers 
were  necessary  to  suppress  it.  It  was  at  last  suppressed  and 
at  least  thirty  of  its  leaders  were  executed. 

Effect  upon  emancipation  sentiment.  Its  effect  upon  public 
opinion  touching  the  slave  question  was  significant.  Just 
before  the  insurrection,  a  constitutional  convention  was  held 
in  Virginia.  For  years  there  was  considerable  agitation  for 
emancipation  in  that  State.  Perhaps  one-third  of  the  dele- 
gates of  the  convention  favored  emancipation.  The  sentiment 
in  favor  of  it  was  pronounced  among  the  delegates.  The  Nat 
Turner  episode  caused  a  complete  facing  about.  From  that 
time  on,  instead  of  measures  leading  to  emancipation,  repress- 
ive laws  were  enacted. 

Status  of  the  free  colored  people.  The  free  colored  popula- 
tion was  not  placed  upon  an  equality  with  the  whites.  Most  of 
the  States  denied  them  suffrage.  Tennessee  did  not  forbid  it 
until  1834,  and  North  Carohna  permitted  them  suffrage  from 
1776  to  1835,  when  it  was  withdrawn  by  the  close  vote  of  66 
to  61.  In  most  of  the  States  the  free  colored  people  were 
denied  the  privilege  of  citizenship.  Some  of  the  States 
required  them  to  have  a  guardian.  Most  of  the  States  for- 
bade their  bearing  arms,  their  assembling  to  teach  negroes  to 
read  or  write,  to  preach,  or  to  receive  AboUtion  newspapers. 
Rigid  regulation  was  observed  in  some  of  the  States  against 
allowing  them  to  buy  or  sell  liquors.  After  the  Nat  Turner 
insurrection,  which  preceded  many  of  these  repressive  meas- 
ures, those  States  which  had  permitted  manumission  forbade 
it.  By  1850  certain  States,  which  had  declined  to  interfere 
with  privileges  of  the  free  colored  people,  enacted  a  code  of 
laws  under  the  title  of  vagrancy  laws,  whereby  many  of  them 
were  sold  into  slavery  as  a  penalty  for  violating  the  laws. 


390  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

On  the  22d  of  September,  1862,  the  prehminary  proclama- 
tion for  emancipation  gave  the  slave  States  then  in  rebellion 
one  hundred  days  to  lay  down  their  arms.  The  time  brought 
the  Hmit  to  January  i,  1863.  The  States  decUned  to  heed  the 
decree,  and  the  final  proclamation  was  made  to  take  effect  on 
that  date.  By  its  provision  emancipation  was  extended  to 
3,063,392  slaves.  It  did  not  disturb  the  slaves  in  the  States 
which  had  refused  to  secede,  namely:  Kentucky,  Missouri, 
Maryland  and  Delaware,  nor  did  it  apply  to  slaves  in  Tennes- 
see, nor  in  forty-eight  counties  in  West  Virginia,  seven  coun- 
ties in  Virginia,  and  thirteen  parishes  in  Louisiana.  The 
famous  proclamation  thus  left  about  832,000  colored  people 
in  servitude. 

How  emancipation  was  secured.  Emancipation  by  procla- 
mation had  been  accomplished  as  a  war  measure.  Presi- 
dent Lincoln  had  consistently  held  that  the  Constitution  did 
not  vest  Congress  with  power  to  free  the  slaves,  but  as  a  war 
measure  the  power  clearly  fell  within  the  executive  function. 
He  was  charged  with  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  the  land. 
In  the  interest  of  the  extension  of  slavery,  the  States  in  rebel- 
lion forcibly  obstructed  the  laws.  In  the  process  of  enfor- 
cing the  law,  the  President  found  it  necessary  to  remove  the 
cause,  hence  the  proclamation.  Whether  such  proclamation 
w^ould  have  been  effective,  constitutionally  considered,  with- 
out further  action,  is  not  clear.  To  remove  all  doubt  on 
the  question  and  give  tliis  exercise  of  executive  function  the 
sanction  of  the  Constitution,  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Federal  Constitution  was  proposed  and  ratified  by  the 
necessary  number  of  States.  Thus  by  amendment,  freedom 
was  made  universal  in  all  the  States  ahke,  by  forbidchng  in- 
voluntary servitude  except  punishment  for  crime  in  the  United 
States. 

Ratification  of  the  13th  amendment.  This  amendment  was 
submitted  to  the  States  for  ratification,  and  by  December, 
1865,   twenty-seven  of  the  thirty-six  had  ratified  it.     This 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     391 

number  included  eight  States  which  had  seceded.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  President  Johnson  had  reconstructed  all  the 
States  prior  to  December,  1865.  Congress,  however,  declined 
to  accede  to  his  plan  and  finally  refused  the  States  representa- 
tion in  either  House  until  they  had  complied  with  the  demands 
of  Congress.  The  States  were  thus  regarded  as  States  for  the 
purpose  of  amending  the  Constitution,  but  not  for  the  purpose 
of  legislation.  Without  the  support  of  these  eight  States  the 
amendment  would  not  have  succeeded. 

Interference  of  Federal  legislation.  To  counteract  this 
legislation  Congress  enacted  the  Freedmen's  Aid  and  the 
Civil  Rights  Laws.  At  best  these  enactments  appeared  some- 
what retaliatory,  and  tended  to  estrange  North  and  South,  on 
the  same  question  which  led  to  the  war.  Congress  employed 
the  measure  of  Reconstruction  to  compel  the  States  in  the 
South  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  freedmen.  To  this 
end  the  fourteenth  amendment  was  drafted.  After  a  bitter 
struggle  both  in  and  out  of  Congress,  it  was  ratified  in  July, 
1868.  As  before  mentioned.  Congress  made  its  ratification  a 
condition  for  the  readmission  of  congressmen  from  the  States 
which  had  seceded.  By  the  force  of  this  enactment  a  sufhcient 
number  of  the  States  ratified  it  to  constitute  the  necessary 
three-fourths,  provided  Ohio  and  New  Jersey  (both  of  which 
had  already  ratified,  but  upon  a  change  of  the  pohtical  com- 
plexion insisted  upon  rescinding  its  ratification)  could  not 
withdraw  their  ratification.  It  was  decided  that  when  a 
State  had  once  ratified  an  amendment  it  could  not  withdraw; 
hence  the  fourteenth  amendment  stood  as  a  part  of  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  land.  This  amendment  was  couched  in  five 
sections,  designed  to  cover  all  the  points  of  importance  growing 
out  of  the  altered  conditions  consequent  upon  the  war. 

Citizenship  defined.  The  first  section  defined  citizenship 
in  the  United  States.  It  declared,  "All  persons  born  or  nat- 
uralized in  the  United  States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction 
thereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  the  State  wherein 


392  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

they  reside."  Up  to  this  time  citizenship  had  been  regarded 
the  prerogative  of  the  State.  Henceforth  it  took  on  a  na- 
tional significance.  The  amendment  gave  the  nation  priority. 
From  1868  citizenship  of  the  United  States  has  depended  upon 
birth  or  congressional  action  —  naturalization;  while  cit- 
izenship of  a  State  depends  upon  residence  and  intention  of 
the  citizen.  The  terms  of  the  amendment  include  all  persons. 
They  are  not  limited  by  race,  color  or  condition.  To  this 
positive  enactment  there  was  added  a  negative  provision  which 
forbids  the  State  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  the  citizen. 
It  reads,  "No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall 
abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States;  nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty, 
or  property,  without  due  process  of  law;  nor  deny  to  any  per- 
son within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  law." 

Purpose  of  the  first  section.  The  purpose  of  this  section 
was  to  prevent  such  enactments  as  the  Southern  States  had 
made  at  the  close  of  the  war,  under  the  name  "vagrancy 
laws,"  which  nullified  the  provisions  of  the  thirteenth  amend- 
ment. While  the  thirteenth  amendment  freed  the  slave,  the 
fourteenth  endeavored  to  clothe  him  with  civil  rights  by  mak- 
ing him  a  citizen,  endowed  with  all  the  privileges  of  the  whites. 
This  amendment  was  diametrically  opposed  to  the  provisions 
of  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  Under  its  provisions  all  persons, 
including  men,  women,  and  children,  if  born  or  naturalized 
in  the  United  States,  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of 
the  State  wherein  they  reside,  and  no  State  can  interfere  with 
their  rights  as  such. 

Apportionment  in  the  Federal  convention.  The  second 
section  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  provided  for  the  appor- 
tionment of  representatives  in  Congress,  by  counting  the 
whole  number  of  persons  in  each  State,  excluding  Indians  not 
taxed.  The  question  of  apportionment  was  a  problem  in 
the  Federal  convention  of  1787.  In  that  convention  a 
variety  of  opinions  developed  among  the  delegates. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      393 

But  finally  a  compromise  was  reached.  It  was  agreed  that 
*'  representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among 
the  several  States  which  may  be  included  in  this  Union,  accord- 
ing to  their  respective  numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by 
adding  to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons,  including  those 
bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians 
not  taxed,  three-fifths  of  all  other  persons."  This  constitutes 
the  famous  "three-fifths  rule,"  one  of  the  compromises  on 
slavery  in  the  Constitution. 

Two  distinctive  classes  are  here  included:  free  persons,  and 
three-fifths  of  all  others.  This  last  class  refers  to  the  slaves. 
From  the  first,  therefore,  congressional  representation  counted 
five  slaves  equal  to  three  whites,  in  estimating  population. 
This  continued  down  to  1865  when  the  thirteenth  amend- 
ment took  effect.  This  amendment  transferred  the  slaves 
from  the  "all  other  persons"  class  to  the  "free  persons" 
class.  Henceforth  the  freedmen  equaled  the  whites  in  making 
up  the  representation  in  Congress.  This  promised  augmenta- 
tion of  influence  in  Congress  of  the  States  lately  in  rebellion, 
and  it  was  at  least  a  partial  cause  for  the  insistence  upon  a 
modification  of  the  rule  of  representation,  which  found  expres- 
sion in  the  second  section  of  the  fourteenth  amendment. 

Second  section  of  fourteenth  amendment.  This  section 
provides  that  representatives  shall  be  apportioned  according 
to  population,  excluding  Indians  not  taxed.  This  leaves  the 
rule  as  the  thirteenth  amendment  left  it.  But  this  second 
section  also  provides  that  when  the  right  to  vote  at  any  election 
for  the  electors  for  President  and  Vice-President,  representa- 
tives in  Congress,  the  executive  or  judicial  officers  of  the  State, 
or  members  of  the  legislature,  is  denied  to  any  of  the  male 
inhabitants  of  such  State  of  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  way  abridged,  except 
for  participation  in  rebellion,  or  other  crime,  the  basis  of 
representation  shall  be  reduced  in  the  State  so  denying, 
in    proportion   which    this    number   shall   be    to    the    whole 


394  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

number  of  male  citizens  of  twenty-one  years  of  age  within  the 
State. 

Two  views.  There  are  at  least  two  classes  of  opinions 
relative  to  this  section.  One  class  holds  that  the  purpose  was 
to  confer  the  right  of  suffrage  upon  the  freedmen.  The  other 
holds  that  it  was  designed  to  reduce  the  representation  in 
Congress  of  the  Southern  States.  The  option  was  left  to  the 
States,  either  to  extend  suffrage  to  the  freedmen  or  have  their 
vote  reduced  in  Congress.  The  first  position  argued  that 
restrictive  measures  in  the  Southern  States  designed  to  reduce 
the  freedmen  to  a  state  of  slavery  from  which  the  war  had 
freed  them,  were  beyond  a  remedy  by  the  national  govern- 
ment; that  the  only  recourse  was  to  place  the  ballot  in  the 
hands  of  the  persons  at  whom  such  repressive  measures  were 
aimed.  The  fact  that  the  freedmen  owed  their  status  largely 
to  the  Republican  party  indicated  that  their  vote  would  give 
that  party  a  great  advantage  and  this  obviously  influenced 
the  activity  of  certain  leaders  of  the  party  in  the  extension  of 
suffrage  to  the  freedmen. 

Fourteenth  amendment  and  negro  suffrage.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  three-fifths  rule  has  been  regarded  by  statesmen  as 
an  unfair  basis  of  representation.  The  compromise  has  been 
held  as  a  one-sided  adjustment,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the 
direct  tax  upon  which  the  compromise  was  built  has  never 
been  a  policy  of  the  government.  It  has  thus  increased  the 
congressional  influence  of  the  South,  without  a  corresponding 
burden  in  taxation  as  was  expected  at  the  time  of  the  Federal 
convention.  The  thirteenth  amendment  eliminated  the  three- 
fifths  rule,  by  adding  two-fifths  to  the  three-fifths,  or  by  count- 
ing all  the  slaves  instead  of  three-fifths  of  them.  By  this 
method  the  abolition  of  slavery  under  the  Constitution  had 
materially  increased  the  power  in  Congress  of  the  States  which 
had  seceded.  In  other  words,  the  white  man  in  the  South 
in  many  States  had  double  the  power  of  the  white  man  in  the 
North.     The  second   section  of  the   fourteenth   amendment 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      395 

sought  to  correct  this  feature.  It  neither  extended  suffrage 
to  the  freedmen  nor  reduced  the  basis  of  representation,  but 
submitted  the  alternative  to  the  States  to  do  the  one  or  the 
other. 

Opinion  in  the  South.  The  Southern  States  were  not  in- 
clined to  do  either.  They  objected  to  the  national  govern- 
ment's interfering  with  the  question  of  suffrage,  which  from 
the  foundation  of  the  government  had  been  left  to  the  States. 
This  they  held  was  an  unwarranted  interference  with  the  rights 
of  the  States.  Here  they  failed  to  distinguish  a  statutory 
enactment  from  a  constitutional  pronouncement.  The  first 
is  the  function  of  the  law-marking  power,  the  second  is  the 
prerogative  of  the  people  themselves,  above  which  there  is  no 
authority.  The  South  also  felt  that  the  freedman  should  be 
enumerated  in  making  up  the  basis  of  representation;  that  he 
should  not  be  excluded  on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  a  voter 
any  more  than  the  women  and  children  should  not  be  excluded 
because  they  were  not  voters.  Suffrage  was  withheld  from  the 
freedmen,  and  the  representation  was  not  reduced  because 
before  it  could  be  done,  the  fifteenth  amendment  had  been 
proposed  and  ratified  by  the  necessary  three-fourths  vote  of 
the  States.  This  amendment  did  not  nulHfy  the  fourteenth 
amendment,  but  it  partially  removed  the  occasion  which 
called  for  it. 

Iron-clad  oath.  The  third  section  of  the  fourteenth  amend- 
ment constituted  what  is  known  as  the  "iron-clad  oath." 
It  refused  office,  either  national  or  State,  to  any  one  who  had 
previously  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  afterward  engaged  in  rebellion  against  the 
government.  It  provided  for  the  removal  of  this  disabihty 
by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  each  House.  By  this  section  a  very 
considerable  portion  of  the  well-informed  men  of  the  Souths 
ern  States  was  disfranchised.  The  number  thus  disfranchised 
has  been  variously  estimated  as  between  fourteen  thousand 
and  thirty-five  thousand.     It  was  to  this  section  President 


396  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Johnson  referred  in  one  of  his  messages  when  he  claimed  that 
the  purpose  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  was  to  enfranchise 
the  black  and  to  disfranchise  the  white  population  of  the 
Southern  States,  thereby  reversing  the  position  of  the  races. 
On  the  other  hand,  a  majority  of  Congress  professed  to  beheve 
that  the  government  had  displayed  the  rarest  magnanimity  in 
hmiting  its  demands  to  so  hght  a  punishment  and  to  so  small 
a  number,  for  the  crime  of  rebellion.  They  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  great  body  of  citizens  were  not  affected  by 
the  amendment. 

Repudiation  of  the  Confederate  debt.  A  fourth  section  of 
the  amendment  provided  for  the  vahdity  of  the  national 
debt  contracted  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war  to  suppress  the 
Rebellion,  and  for  the  repudiation  of  the  Confederate  debt 
contracted  in  aid  of  the  Rebelhon.  The  former  clause  of  this 
section  was  designed  to  prevent  the  States  from  repudiating 
the  claims  of  the  national  government  in  the  form  of  pensions, 
bonds,  treasury  notes,  etc.,  entailed  by  the  Rebellion.  The 
latter  clause  was  designed  to  provide  against  answering  to  any 
claims  based  upon  the  loss  of  property  in  the  emancipation  of 
the  slaves  and  the  destruction  of  various  forms  of  property  in 
the  prosecution  of  the  war.  A  fifth  section  of  the  amendment 
gave  Congress  power  to  enforce  the  preceding  sections.  This 
fifth  section  is  generally  regarded  useless,  on  the  ground  that 
Congress  would  have  that  power  without  its  expressed  delega- 
tion. This  rule  of  interpretation,  which  is  Hamiltonian,  has 
been  followed  by  all  pohtical  parties. 

The  fifteenth  amendment.  The  thirteenth  amendment  was 
designed  to  extend  freedom  to  the  slave.  The  fourteenth  was 
designed  to  clothe  him  with  citizenship.  It  also  conditionally 
provided  for  his  suffrage.  In  the  judgment  of  at  least  two- 
thirds  of  Congress  neither  the  one  amendment,  nor  the  other, 
nor  both  together  afforded  the  negro  the  necessary  means  to 
enjoy  his  freedom.  It  could  scarcely  be  expected  that  the 
people  in  the  South  would  quietly  submit  to  the  changed  condi- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      397 

tions  entailed  by  the  war  and  the  amendments.  At  least  they 
did  not  submit.  Their  opposition,  whether  excusable  or  not, 
was  strong  enough  to  neutrahze  the  force  of  both  amendments. 
To  counteract  this  opposition  the  fifteenth  amendment  was 
proposed  and  ratified  by  the  necessary  three-fourths  of  the 
States.  It  declared, "  The  rights  of  citizens  of  the  United  States 
to  vote  shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United 
States,  or  by  any  State,  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous 
condition  of  servitude."  It  authorized  Congress  to  enforce  the 
article  by  appropriate  legislation.  This  amendment  was  for- 
mally announced  by  the  Secretary  of  State  on  the  30th  of 
March,  1870.  It  will  be  observed  that  it  forbade  either  the 
State  or  the  nation  to  deny  or  abridge  the  right  of  suffrage 
to  any  citizen  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition 
of  servitude.  It  will  also  be  observed  that  the  protection  is 
Hmited  to  citizens  of  the  United  States.  The  Chinese  or  other 
persons  who  cannot  become  citizens,  are  excluded  from  the 
force  of  this  amendment.  The  amendment  does  not  confer 
suffrage,  but  it  simply  forbids  its  abridgment  on  certain 
grounds.  The  specific  purpose  was  to  arm  the  freedman  with 
the  ballot. 

Carpet-bagger  and  Ku-klux  Klan.  Under  the  force  of  these 
amendments  the  "carpet-bag  regime"  was  ushered  in.  In 
some  of  the  States,  if  not  in  most  of  them,  the  negro  secured 
control  of  the  machinery  of  government.  Various  methods 
were  employed  to  forestall  such  a  consummation.  Fraud  was 
employed  freely  in  places.  In  others  the  negro  was  hired  to 
remain  away  from  the  polls.  Secret  organizations,  such  as 
the  famous  Ku-klux  Klan  and  the  White  League,  sprang  up. 
Congress  attempted  to  suppress  them  by  enacting  an  enforce- 
ment law  in  1870.  This  law  was  followed  by  another  placing 
congressional  elections  in  cities  of  20,000  and  over  under 
Federal  supervision.  Thus  by  the  aid  of  the  national  govern- 
ment, these  former  slave  States  under  the  amendments  were 
quite  generally  in  the  hands  of  the  former  slaves  who  were 


398  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

assisted  by  an  element  of  the  white  population,  much  of  which 
was  from  the  North.  This  condition  was  intolerable  to  what 
would  be  known  as  the  better  class  in  the  South.  It  accen- 
tuated racial  differences,  and  ultimately  solidified  the  white 
against  the  black. 

Partizan  effect  of  fifteenth  amendment.  In  places  where 
the  negro  predominated,  the  people  experienced  carnivals  of 
corruption.  Their  inexperience  and  inaptitude  soon  brought 
the  States  to  an  intolerable  condition.  This  regime  continued 
for  some  time.  The  Repubhcan  party,  wliich  had  secured  to 
the  negro  the  rights  conferred  by  the  three  amendments,  had 
but  a  temporary  advantage  from  this  enlarged  electorate.  It 
was  enabled  to  carry  the  States  in  the  South  for  a  time  but 
it  was  destined  to  lose  them  ultimately.  In  1868  it  carried 
Missouri,  Arkansas,  Tennessee,  Alabama,  Florida,  South 
Carolina  and  North  Carolina.  In  1872,  with  the  force  of  the 
fifteenth  amendment,  the  Repubhcan  party  carried  Mississippi 
Alabama,  Florida,  South  Carolina,  North  Carolina  and  Vir- 
ginia. By  1876  it  had  lost  all  these  States  except  Louisiana, 
Florida  and  South  Carolina.  The  election  in  these  three 
States  was  claimed  by  both  the  Republican  and  the  Democratic 
party.  This  change  was  brought  about  in  various  ways:  by 
all  the  whites  uniting  on  the  race  issue,  by  inducing  the 
negroes  to  remain  away  from  the  polls  on  election  day,  and 
by  fraud  and  violence. 

Limitation  of  suffrage.  Many  States  have  succeeded  in 
limiting  suffrage  to  persons  possessing  certain  qualifications, 
so  as  to  almost  entirely  eliminate  the  negro  vote.  Mississippi 
Hmits  the  privilege  of  voting  to  those  who  can  read  and  under- 
stand any  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and 
who  have  paid  a  poll  tax.  Alabama  limits  the  privilege  to 
soldiers  and  descendants  and  persons  of  good  moral  character 
and  those  who  understand  the  duties  of  citizenship  under  a 
repubhcan  government.  After  1903  suffrage  was  limited 
to  those  who  could  read  the  EngHsh  language  inteUigently 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      399 

and  who  were  regularly  employed  in  some  lawful  occupation 
and  owners  of  property  valued  at  three  hundred  dollars. 
South  Carolina  limits  it  to  those  who  can  read  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  and  explain  it,  and  to  the  owners  of 
property  valued  at  three  hundred  dollars.  Louisiana  limits 
it  to  those  who  can  read  intelligently,  and  who  own  not  less 
than  three  hundred  dollars'  worth  of  property,  and  have  paid 
their  taxes.  It  provides  that  these  Hmitations  shall  not  apply 
to  male  persons  who  were  entitled  to  vote  in  1867,  nor  to  their 
descendants.  This  is  the  ''grandfather  clause."  North 
Carohna  requires  an  educational  qualification,  and  has  a 
"grandfather  clause"  similar  to  that  of  Louisiana.  Virginia 
prior  to  1904  Hmited  suffrage  to  soldiers,  their  sons,  owners  of 
property  to  the  value  of  three  hundred  dollars,  and  persons 
who  can  understand  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Since  1904  it  has  been  Hmited  to  persons  who  have  paid  their 
poll  tax  and  can  make  appHcation  in  their  own  handwriting 
without  aid.  These  Virginia  qualifications  do  not  apply  to 
soldiers  in  either  army.  This  last  is  called  the  "veteran 
clause." 

Legality  of  restrictions.  Other  States  have  quahfied  the 
privilege  of  suffrage.  Some  of  them  require  both  educational 
and  property  quaUfications.  Others  require  one  or  the  other. 
None  of  them  violates  the  letter  of  the  fifteenth  amendment. 
Those  which  have  the  grandfather  clause  violate  at  least  its 
spirit.  Those  which  require  the  ability  to  understand  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  a  qualification  for  voting, 
can  be  so  applied  that  the  whites  will  be  admitted  and  the 
blacks  excluded.  It  now  appears  that  these  laws  are  within 
the  letter  of  the  Constitution  and  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether 
the  violation  of  the  spirit  of  that  instrument  is  sufficient  to 
induce  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  to  nulhfy  them. 

The  slaughter-house  case.  Light  is  thrown  upon  the  sub- 
ject by  various  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  touching  the 
amendment.     The  first  was  the  slaughter-house  case.     The 


400  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

State  of  Louisiana  had  given  to  certain  companies  exclusive 
privilege  of  carrying  on  the  business  of  slaughtering  animals. 
Action  was  brought  on  the  ground  that  such  a  grant  abridged 
the  right  of  citizenship  conferred  by  the  fourteenth  amend- 
ment. The  case  went  to  the  Supreme  Court  which  decided 
that  it  was  a  question  for  the  State  and  denied  that  such  action 
abridged  the  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
Whether  it  abridged  the  privilege  of  citizens  of  the  State  was 
a  question  for  the  State  to  decide.  The  Court  affirmed  that 
the  object  of  the  amendment  was  not  to  take  away  rights  or 
privileges  from  the  States,  but  to  confer  certain  rights  upon  a 
class  up  to  this  time  denied  such  privileges  or  rights.  It  said 
that  to  confer  rights  upon  the  blacks  did  not  deny  other  rights 
to  the  whites. 

The  Minor  case.  Another  case  touching  the  question  was 
brought  by  a  Mrs.  Minor  of  Missouri.  It  grew  out  of  a  refusal 
of  the  officers  of  election  to  allow  this  lady  to  vote  for  the 
presidential  electors.  She  brought  action  against  the  officers 
on  the  ground  that  her  rights  as  a  citizen  under  the  four- 
teenth amendment  had  been  abridged.  Justice  Waite  ren- 
dered the  decision  in  which  there  was  a  unanimous  concurrence 
of  the  Court.  It  followed  the  reasoning  of  the  slaughter-house 
case.  It  declared  that  Mrs.  Minor  had  been  a  citizen  prior  to 
the  passage  of  the  fourteenth  amendment.  As  such,  under  the 
laws  of  the  State  in  which  she  lived,  she  was  not  entitled  to  a 
vote;  the  fourteenth  amendment  did  not  confer  upon  her 
what  she  did  not  have  before,  but  simply  protected  her  in  what 
she  enjoyed.  It  declared  that  suffrage  was  not  one  of  the 
privileges  or  immunities  referred  to  in  the  Constitution;  that 
suffrage  was  a  matter  for  the  State,  not  the  nation. 

Cruikshank  case.  The  Cruikshank  case  in  1875  was  one 
of  the  most  important  because  it  touched  the  sensitive  question 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  government  on  the  matter  of 
voting.  Cruikshank  and  others  had  been  convicted  in  the 
Federal  courts  on  a  charge  of  conspiracy  to  deprive  certain 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      401 

persons  (negroes)  from  exercising  their  lawful  right  to  vote. 
The  Supreme  Court  held  that  the  right  to  vote  was  a  State 
pri\ilege,  not  a  national  right;  if  the  conspiracy  had  been 
against  the  persons  on  the  account  of  race,  color^  or  condition 
of  servitude,  then  the  violation  would  have  fallen  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  United  States.  The  Court  repeated  its  former 
opinion  that  the  amendments  primarily  granted  nothing  but 
aimed  to  protect  what  the  citizens  rightfully  possessed.  In  the 
Reese  case  the  Court  declared  that  the  fifteenth  amendment 
did  not  confer  suffrage,  but  provided  against  discrimination  on 
account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

Other  cases.  Later,  cases  came  before  the  Supreme  Court 
which  involved  the  question  of  discrimination  against  the 
negro  in  the  selection  of  a  jury._  In  West  Virginia  the  State 
provided  that  jurors  could  only  be  selected  from  white  male 
citizens.  This  law  was  declared  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  to  be  a  discrimination,  and  in  violation  of  the 
fourteenth  amendment.  In  Virginia  there  is  no  such  law. 
The  Supreme  Court  denied  the  prayer  of  a  negro  against  being 
put  on  trial  before  a  jury  of  white  men,  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  not  necessarily  a  discrimination. 

Civil  Rights  bill.  The  Civil  Rights  bill  of  1875  was  designed 
to  confer  upon  negroes  equal  privileges  in  hotels,  pubHc  con- 
veyances, etc.  The  Supreme  Court  pronounced  this  law 
unconstitutional  on  the  ground  that  the  amendment  appKed 
only  to  States,  not  to  individuals;  the  State  had  not  passed 
any  laws  regulating  these  privileges.  It  further  declared  that 
the  privileges  in  question  were  not  comprehended  in  the  terms 
"privileges"  and  "immunities"  as  used  in  the  Constitution. 

The  tendency  of  Federal  decisions.  This  line  of  Federal 
decisions,  instead  of  denying  the  principle  of  State  rights,  has 
largely  augmented  it.  It  has  clearly  marked  out  the  two 
fields  of  operation,  State  and  national,  and  has  discriminated 
between  the  granting  power,  which  is  largely  in  the  States,  and 
the  protecting  power,  which  is  as  largely  in  the  nation.     It  has 


402  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

left  privileges  where  it  found  them.  It  shows  the  purpose  of 
the  amendments  was  not  to  augment  privileges  but  to  protect 
them.  The  tliirteenth  amendment  did  not  pretend  to  grant 
freedom,  it  simply  denied  to  any  State  the  right  to  continue 
slavery.  The  fourteenth  amendment  did  not  grant  citizen- 
ship, most  of  the  population  of  the  States  already  enjoyed  it; 
but  it  denied  the  power  to  any  State  to  abridge  it.  The  fif- 
teenth amendment  did  not  grant  suffrage,  but  denied  to  any 
State  the  power  to  refuse  it  to  any  person  on  account  of  race, 
color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

Still  unsettled.  This  \dew  of  the  amendments  will  admit 
of  an  explanation  of  the  seeming  conflict  between  the  Federal 
Constitution  and  the  State  constitutions  which  have  abridged 
the  suffrage  privilege.  So  long  as  this  Hmitations  is  not  put 
on  the  ground  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude, 
the  States  are  within  the  constitutional  limit.  Whether 
limitation  of  the  right  to  vote  can  be  so  made  as  to  apply  only 
to  the  negro,  without  touching  the  white  man  and  still  be 
within  the  Constitution  is  yet  a  question.  The  "grandfather 
clause"  attempts  to  reach  this  result.  Down  to  the  present 
time  (iqo6)  this  question  remains  unadjudicated. 

Constitutional  sanction  against  statutory  enactment.  There 
is  one  other  consideration  growing  out  of  the  fourteenth  amend- 
ment. When  the  States  Hmit  suffrage,  as  many  have  already 
done,  will  not  the  representation  in  Congress  from  that  State 
be  reduced?  Not  necessarily.  The  distinction  between  con- 
stitutional law  and  statutory  enactment  must  here  be  made. 
The  former  is  found  in  the  Constitution  and  is  made  by  the 
people,  while  the  latter  is  found  in  the  statute  books  and  is 
made  by  the  government.  The  former  is  really  a  dead  letter 
until  enforced  by  the  latter.  For  example,  the  Constitution 
provides  for  a  Senate  and  a  House  of  Representatives.  But 
without  provision  of  Congress  to  put  the  machinery  of  both 
in  motion,  there  would  really  be  neither.  So  hkewise  the 
fourteenth  amendment  provides  for  a  reduction  of  representa- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE    UNITED   STATES      403 

tion  in  the  lower  House  in  case  the  right  to  vote  is  denied. 
But  without  an  enactment  by  Congress  to  enforce  this  pro- 
vision, it  is  a  dead  letter.  Therefore,  no  matter  how  great 
the  Hmitation  of  suffrage  in  the  State,  its  representation  will 
not  be  reduced  unless  Congress  reduces  it. 

The  effect  of  the  amendment.  Many  people  think  the 
fifteenth  amendment  was  a  great  mistake.  At  least  it  would 
appear  that  wisdom  would  have  dictated  some  quahfication 
for  the  exercise  of  the  ballot.  Whatever  the  past,  the  negro 
is  here  and  here  to  stay.  The  two  races  will  continue  separate 
races.  They  should  be  friendly  and  every  facility  should  be 
granted  for  their  future  welfare.  The  effect  of  these  amend- 
ments was  a  complete  elimination  of  political  and  economic 
issues,  and  an  alignment  upon  a  racial  basis.  The  Republican 
party,  ha\ang  prosecuted  the  war  and  secured  the  constitu- 
tional changes  in  the  status  of  the  slave,  by  which  he  first 
became  a  freedman,  then  a  citizen  and  then  a  voter,  won  his 
support.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Democratic  party,  having 
freely  criticized  Lincoln's  war  poKcy,  the  Reconstruction  policy 
of  Congress  and  the  amendments,  lost  the  black  vote,  but  won 
the  soHd  white  vote  of  the  former  slave  States.  Ere  long  the 
division  was  not  RepubUcan  versus  Democratic,  but  black 
versus  white.  This  fact  continued  the  race  question  as  the 
leading  one.  It  perpetuated  the  war  feehng  long  after  the 
war  was  ended  and  its  results  generally  accepted.  It  con- 
tinued a  form  of  sectional  strife  and  made  possible  a  solid 
South  and  a  united  North.  This  unhappy  situation  is  based 
upon  a  political  error  implying  that  the  interests  of  the  two 
peoples  are  antagonistic,  rather  than  mutual.  The  force  of 
this  error  is  noticed  in  the  complaint  from  the  South  that  it 
has  been  compelled  to  do  penance  for  forty  years  with  little 
hope  of  future  relief.  For  half  a  century  after  the  opening  of 
hostilities  between  the  two  sections,  neither  party  has  gone  to 
the  South  for  its  presidential  candidate.  In  that  respect,  the 
South  is  as  a  foreign  country.     However,  this  aspect  is  not 


404  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

observed  in  the  organization  of  Congress  —  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  various  committees  in  the  two  Houses,  in  the 
selection  of  the  Federal  judges,  and  in  presidential  appoint- 
ments, such  as  foreign  ministers,  Cabinet  officers,  etc. 

This  discrimination  will  grow  less  and  less  through  the  rapid 
flow  of  population  and  the  organization  of  industries,  move- 
ments which  combine  all  sections  in  one  people.  A  better 
understanding  of  the  rights  of  both  races,  of  their  mutual 
relations,  and  a  clearer  conception  of  the  oneness  of  all  the 
interests  of  all  the  people,  point  to  a  total  obliteration  of  sec- 
tional feelings  engendered  by  civil  war. 


CHAPTER  XX 

PARTY  ISSUES  SINCE  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

The  party  of  strict  construction.  The  war  and  its  conse- 
quences determined  the  pohtical  issues  for  at  least  twenty 
years  after  its  close.  The  heat  of  civil  strife  fused  all  parti- 
zan  elements  into  two  divisions.  These  divisions  aUgned 
along  the  principles  which  originally  divided  the  country  into 
parties,  namely,  strict  construction  and  loose  construction. 
They  coincided  in  name  with  the  Democratic  and  Republican 
parties.  This  division  was  rational,  both  from  a  theoretical 
and  an  historical  position.  Historically,  the  Democratic 
party,  standing  for  the  largest  hberty  in  both  the  individual 
and  the  State  (not  including  the  negro),  is  a  strict  construction 
party.  Its  theory  would  compel  it  to  confine  the  exercise  of 
power  within  the  expressed  authority  of  the  Constitution. 
Also  its  position  as  a  party  out  of  power  logically  compelled 
it  to  accept  the  strict  construction  view  of  the  Constitution, 
and  for  the  same  reason  to  take  a  negative,  rather  than 
positive,  stand  upon  public  issues. 

The  party  of  loose  construction.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Republican  party,  the  successor  in  political  theory  of  the 
Whigs,  who  had  been  the  successor  of  the  Federalists  standing 
for  authority  in  government,  is  a  loose  construction  party. 
Its  theory  would  not  admit  of  constitutional  scruples  in  neces- 
sary legislation,  but  it  would  employ  implied  as  well  as  ex- 
pressed powers  to  secure  such  legislation.  Also  its  situation 
as  a  party  in  power  logically  compels  it  to  adopt  the  loose  or 

405 


4o6  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

broad  construction  of  the  Constitution,  and  for  the  same  reason 
to  take  a  positive  rather  than  a  negative  stand  on  pubhc 
questions;  hence  the  oft-repeated  charge  that  the  Democratic 
party  is  destructive  in  character,  while  the  Repubhcan  party 
is  constructive.  This  classification  largely  holds  true  since  the 
war.  However,  before  the  war,  the  opposite  was  true.  The 
positive  and  negative  character  of  parties  is  not  due  so  much 
to  their  theories,  as  to  their  situation. 

Issues.  The  prominent  issues  since  the  war  are  compre- 
hended under  the  following  heads: 

1.  Those  which  grew  out  of  the  war  as  necessary  consequences. 

2.  The  Financial  Question. 

3.  The  Tariff  Question. 

4.  The  Civil  Service  Question. 

5.  Foreign  Relations. 

6.  The  Expansion  Question. 

7.  The  Trust  Question. 

Under  these  various  captions  can  be  classed  most  of  the 
important  issues  which  have  attracted  the  attention  of  the 
country  since  the  close  of  the  Civil  War. 

Issues  which  grew  out  of  the  Civil  War.  Under  the  first 
head  come  the  Reconstruction  measures,  the  thirteenth, 
fourteenth  and  fifteenth  amendments,  and  the  status  of  the 
freedmen.  Also  certain  phases  of  the  currency  question  which 
grew  out  of  the  war,  such  as  the  large  issue  of  Bonds,  the  Legal- 
tender  Acts,  the  National  Bank  Act,  the  Resumption  Act,  the 
sectional  issue  as  expressed  in  the  secret  organizations  in  the 
South,  the  Enforcement  Act,  commonly  called  the  "  Force 
bill,"  the  act  placing  congressional  elections  in  cities  of  a 
certain  size  under  Federal  control,  and  the  Civil  Rights  Law 
which  was  afterward  pronounced  unconstitutional  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Phases  of  the  financial  question.  The  financial  question 
in  the  United  States  has  appeared  in  numerous  phases,  under 
many  forms,  and  on  many  different  occasions.     It  compre- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     407 

hends  the  establishment  of  the  banking  business,  the  history 
of  the  coinage  question,  the  issuance  of  the  United  States 
notes  commonly  called  the  Greenbacks,  the  Legal-tender 
Acts,  the  resumption  of  specie  payments,  the  issuance  of  gold 
and  silver  certificates,  the  issuance  of  the  Sherman  Treasury 
notes,  as  well  as  various  other  forms. 

The  National  Bank.  From  1836  to  1863  there  were  no 
National  Banks  in  existence.  Banking  business  was  carried 
on  by  State  institutions.  In  the  latter  year  the  present 
national  banking  system  (1906)  was  adopted.  It  provided 
that  any  five  persons  may  estabhsh  a  National  Bank.  At 
first  the  minimum  capital  was  placed  at  $50,000;  later  it  was 
reduced  to  half  that  sum.  It  provided  for  a  bank  currency  by 
issuing  to  the  Bank,  upon  its  deposit  of  national  bonds  with  the 
comptroller  of  the  currency,  bank  notes.  At  first  these  notes 
were  not  to  exceed  ninety  per  cent  of  the  bonds  deposited,  but 
later  this  was  increased  to  one  hundred  per  cent.  The  notes 
are  secured  by  the  government  and  are  receivable  in  payment 
of  taxes.  A  large  amount  of  the  country's  circulating  medium 
is  made  up  of  these  notes. 

Unfortunate  features.  Certain  features  of  the  present 
banking  system,  as  represented  in  the  National  Bank,  subject 
it  to  severe  attacks  from  its  enemies.  The  fact  that  it  receives 
an  interest  upon  its  bonds  deposited  with  the  comptroller  of 
the  currency,  and  also  upon  the  loans  which  it  makes,  renders 
it  subject  to  the  charge  of  receiving  double  interest  at  the 
expense  of  the  pubhc.  Also  the  fact  that  its  very  existence  rests 
upon  a  deposit  of  United  States  bonds,  makes  a  national 
indebtedness  necessary  for  its  continuance.  This  feature  has 
always  been  unfortunate.  It  leads  to  the  conviction  among 
many  citizens  that  our  indebtedness  will  never  be  relieved  so 
long  as  such  a  powerful  factor  as  the  National  Banking  business 
owes  its  life  to  the  continuance  of  that  indebtedness. 

Legislation  since  the  war.  In  1873  gold  was  made  the 
standard  of  value,  and  silver  was  coined  as  subsidiary  coin 


4o8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

which  was  limited  as  a  legal  tender  to  small  sums.  The  silver 
dollar,  known  as  the  trade  dollar,  was  provided  with  420 
grains,  heavier  than  the  old  silver  dollar  which  contained 
only  41 2I  grains.  This  trade  dollar,  intended  to  meet  the 
competition  with  the  Mexican  dollar  of  416  grains,  was 
discontinued  as  a  legal  tender  in  1877.  The  next  year  the 
Bland-AUison  Act  resumed  the  coinage  of  the  silver  dollar  of 
41 2§  grains,  and  made  it  a  legal  tender  for  all  debts.  It  also 
required  the  treasury  to  purchase  and  coin  not  less  than 
$2,000,000  nor  more  than  $4,000,000  worth  of  bullion  per 
month.  The  next  year,  1879,  subsidiary  silver  coins  were  made 
a  legal  tender  for  an  amount  of  ten  dollars.  In  1890  the  act  of 
1878  was  repealed,  and  the  treasury  was  directed  to  purchase 
each  month  4,500,000  ounces  of  silver  bullion  at  the  market 
price,  in  payment  of  which  the  government  issued  treasury 
notes.    In  1893  the  purchasing  clause  of  this  law  was  repealed. 

Coinage  a  party  issue.  In  1896  the  campaign  between  the 
Republican  and  the  Democratic  parties  was  conducted  upon  the 
silver  question.  Prior  to  this  date,  efforts  had  been  made  to 
commit  the  Democratic  party  to  the  free  coinage  of  silver. 
Mr.  Cleveland,  then  the  controlling  personality  of  the  party 
backed  by  the  Eastern  States,  prevented  the  party  from  taking 
such  a  position.  By  1896,  through  the  almost  united  West 
and  South,  the  Democratic  convention  adopted  a  platform 
declaring  against  monometallism  and  in  favor  of  bimetalhsm, 
that  is,  against  the  use  of  but  one  standard  in  favor  of  a  double 
standard.  It  declared  that  both  gold  and  silver  were  the  money 
of  the  Constitution,  and  the  Act  of  1873,  which  made  gold  the 
standard,  was  a  crime  against  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
It  pronounced  in  favor  of  the  "free  and  unhmited  coinage  of 
silver  and  gold  at  the  present  legal  ratio  of  sixteen  to  one 
without  waiting  for  the  aid  of  consent  of  any  other  nation." 

Republican  position.  The  Repubhcan  party  had  already 
taken  its  position  on  the  money  question.  Some  time  before 
the  convention  met,  it  was  conceded  that  the  money  question 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      409 

was  to  cut  an  important  figure  in  the  campaign.  Ohio,  Mc- 
Kinley's  State,  met  in  State  convention  in  March,  and  adopted 
a  plank  declaring  for  the  use  of  both  gold  and  silver  as  stand- 
ard money.  It  demanded  such  legislation  either  by  inter- 
national agreement  or  restrictions  of  law  as  would  insure  the 
parity  of  both  metals.  In  its  national  convention,  the  party 
declared  in  favor  of  "sound  money."  It  pronounced  against 
the  free  coinage  of  silver,  except  by  international  agreement, 
and  pledged  itself  to  maintain  the  gold  standard  until  such  an 
agreement  could  be  reached.  It  also  pledged  itself  to  maintain 
the  parity  of  value  of  gold,  silver  and  paper. 

Campaigns  of  1896,  1900.  Upon  this  issue  was  conducted 
the  whirlwind  campaign  that  has  gone  into  history  as  the 
Bryan  Silver  campaign.  Aside  from  the  Hard  Cider  campaign 
of  1840,  it  was  the  most  exciting  and  spectacular  campaign 
in  the  history  of  American  politics.  It  resulted  in  a  contest 
between  the  Eastern  and  central  States  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  Western  and  Southern  States  on  the  other.  It  called  out 
nearly  14,000,000  votes,  with  McKinley  leading  by  a  plurality 
of  over  600,000.  In  1900  the  issue  was  again  fought  out 
between  the  two  parties  led  by  the  same  candidates.  The 
results  indicated  that  the  silver  issue  had  lost  its  hold  upon 
the  voter.  In  the  campaign  of  1904  the  money  question  did 
not  appear  in  the  discussion. 

Situation  in  i860  —  its  relief.  The  financial  situation  at 
the  opening  of  the  war  was  unfortunate.  The  treasury  was 
empty,  without  enough  money  to  pay  the  salaries  of  members 
of  Congress.  The  nation's  credit  was  not  good,  as  indicated 
by  the  government  offering  to  pay  twelve  per  cent  interest  on 
bonds  issued  for  the  purpose  of  defraying  running  expenses. 
The  exigencies  of  war  rendered  it  necessary  to  secure  an  addi- 
tional circulation.  To  meet  the  demands  the  treasury  notes, 
popularly  called  the  "greenbacks,"  were  issued.  In  July, 
1862,  the  first  issue  of  $150,000,000  was  made.  Subsequent 
issues   aggregated   $300,000,000   more,    making    a    total    of 


4IO  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

$450,000,000  of  these  notes.  Besides,  the  issue  of  $50,000,000 
of  fractional  currency  was  ordered  to  take  the  place  of 
fractional  silver  coins  which  had  ceased  to  circulate.  In  1866 
the  total  amount  of  the  "greenbacks"  was  reduced  to  $356,- 
000,000,  and  in  1878,  $10,000,000  more  were  retired,  leaving 
the  total  amount  in  circulation  $346,000,000.  These  notes 
were  made  legal  tender  for  all  debts,  public  and  private, 
except  duties  on  imports  and  interest  on  the  public  debt. 

Constitutionality  of  the  "greenbacks."     The  legal-tender 
phase  of  these  notes  was  bitterly  contested  both  on  economic 
and  constitutional  grounds.     Opposition  on  the  former  ground 
only  could  assume  a  partizan  phase.     Its  effectiveness  was 
limited  to  the  measure  of  public  opinion  upon  the  issue.     The 
latter  ground  was  less  affected  by  pubhc  opinion,  and  was 
fought  out  in  the  courts  instead  of  the  forum.     The  first  case 
to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the  notes  was  that  of  Hepburn 
versus  Griswold,  in  1869.     The  court  by  a  divided  vote,  four 
to  three,  decided  that  the  notes  were  constitutional  in  so  far 
as  they  did  not  apply  to  contracts  made  prior  to  the  enact- 
ment of  the  Legal- tender  Act.     The  second  case  was  that  of 
Knox  versus  Lee,  in  1870.     In  the  meantime  the  court  had 
been  increased  by  the  addition  of  Justices  Bradley  and  Strong 
vice  Justice  Grier,  resigned.     In  this  case,  the  decision  by  a 
majority  of  the  judges,  five  to  three,  upheld  the  constitution- 
ahty  of  the  act,  as  applied  to  pre-existing  debts  as  well  as  to 
subsequent   contracts.     Still   a   third   case,   Juilliard   versus 
Greenman,  by  a  unanimous  court  save  one,  held  that  the  act 
apphed  to  private  debts  in  peace  as  well  as  in  war. 

Resumption  of  specie  payments.  Two  days  before  the 
introduction  of  the  Legal- tender  Act  specie  payment  was 
suspended.  The  greenbacks  were  refused  acceptance,  in 
many  cases,  in  payment  of  debts.  Their  value  generally 
decHned,  or  gold  generally  went  to  a  premium.  This  decHne 
continued  until  the  fiat  currency  had  but  37  per  cent  purchas- 
ing power.     In  other  words  one  dollar  of  United  States  notes 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     411 

(greenbacks)  purchased  but  thirty-seven  cents  in  gold.  Not- 
withstanding this  decHne,  the  greenback  became  an  exceed- 
ingly popular  currency  with  a  portion  of  the  people.  Every 
effort  to  retire  it  was  fiercely  contested.  The  industrial  in- 
terests anxiously  sought  a  resumption  of  specie  payment. 
Finally  on  the  14th  of  January,  1875,  an  act  was  passed  fLxing 
the  first  day  of  January,  1879,  as  the  date  when  the  govern- 
ment would  resume  specie  payment. 

Effect  of  resumption.  A  variety  of  opinions  existed  as  to 
the  meaning  of  resumption.  The  commercial  interests  ex- 
pected the  retirement  and  cancellation  of  the  greenback  notes. 
There  was  a  considerable  portion  who  beHeved  in  fiat  money 
and  desired  not  only  a  continuance  of  this  circulation,  but 
insisted  upon  an  increase  issue  at  stated  periods.  Senator 
Sherman  and  a  large  body  of  his  followers  insisted  that 
resumption  did  not  involve  the  cancellation  or  retirement  of 
the  greenback,  but  an  appreciation  of  their  value  to  par,  equal 
to  coin.  To  do  this  the  government  proposed  to  hold  itself 
responsible  for  the  ready  exchange  of  coin  for  the  greenback. 
By  this  means  the  contraction  of  the  currency  was  forestalled. 
The  confidence  in  the  ability  of  the  government  to  resume 
specie  payment  brought  the  greenback  to  par  value.  To 
provide  against  a  possible  contraction,  it  was  enacted  that  when 
the  greenback  note  had  been  redeemed  in  gold,  it  should 
again  be  paid  out.  This  one  feature  served  to  draw  out  the 
specie  of  the  treasury.  During  a  financial  fight,  such  as  that 
of  1893,  the  holder  of  the  greenback  could  take  his  bill  to  the 
treasury  and  have  it  exchanged  for  gold.  The  government 
under  the  law  paid  out  the  bill  for  service  in  order  to  prevent 
contraction  of  the  currency.  The  receiver  readily  accepted 
it,  which  could  be  again  redeemed  in  gold.  In  this  manner  a 
single  bill  could  draw  from  the  treasury  a  large  amount  of  its 
specie.  This  feature  was  corrected  later  by  a  measure  pro- 
viding that  when  the  government  received  the  greenback,  it 
could  pay  it  out  for  gold  only. 


412  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

The  silver  agitation.  Prior  to  the  year  1896,  silver  as  a 
medium  of  exchange  had  not  assumed  a  partizan  bias.  The 
silver  dollar  of  412^  grains  had  not  been  in  general  use.  Only 
a  little  over  8,000,000  of  them  had  been  coined  between  1792 
and  1873.  In  the  latter  year  this  dollar  was  dropped  from 
further  coinage.  This  act  was  denominated  the  "crime  of 
1873,"  on  the  ground  that  it  was  surreptitiously  done.  The 
trade  dollar  was  a  response  to  the  demand  for  ability  to  com- 
pete with  the  Mexican  silver  dollar.  Its  issuance  did  not  create 
a  party  issue.  The  attempt  to  secure  the  free  coinage  of 
silver  in  1878,  which  resulted  in  the  enactment  of  the  Bland- 
Alhson  Act,  as  before  mentioned,  divided  the  country,  less  on 
party  lines,  however,  than  on  geographical  lines.  It  was  really 
a  division  between  the  East  and  the  Middle  West  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  West  and  the  South  on  the  other.  The  Sherman 
law  of  1890  further  accentuated  this  division.  The  Democratic 
party  began  to  show,  in  its  various  State  conventions,  a 
friendly  spirit  toward  silver.  The  special  session  of  Congress 
in  1893,  called  by  President  Cleveland,  further  marked  this 
alignment.  Although  the  Democratic  President  recommended 
the  repeal  of  the  purchasing  clause  of  the  Sherman  law,  the 
party  showed  some  reluctance.  By  1896  the  free  coinage  of 
silver  became  the  paramount  issue  between  the  two  parties. 
While  the  Democratic  party  adopted  it  as  its  issue,  many 
prominent  members  of  the  party  repudiated  both  the  issue 
and  the  candidate.  The  same  situation  obtained  in  1900. 
It  did  not  prevail  in  1904.  However,  the  geographical  division 
largely  existed.  The  West  favors  free  coinage,  while  the 
money  centers  of  the  East  oppose  it. 

The  Tariff  an  issue.  The  Tariff  question  assumes  at  least 
three  forms,  namely:  tariff  for  revenue  only;  tariff  for  revenue 
with  incidental  protection;  and  tariff  for  protection.  The 
first  form  is  the  distinctive  Democratic  position;  however, 
many  distinguished  Democrats  have  repudiated  it  for  the  sake 
of  the  second.     The  third  form  was  the  Whig  position,  and  is 


ORG.\NIZATION  IX  THE  UNITED   STATES      413 

now  the  Republican,  although  many  distinguished  members 
of  the  party  have  repudiated  it  for  the  sake  of  the  second. 

The  real  issue.  The  real  difference  as  a  partizan  issue  Hes 
in  that  between  a  tariff  for  revenue  only  and  a  tariff  for  pro- 
tection. This  issue  did  not  divide  the  parties  at  ffrst.  In  fact 
one  of  the  earliest  enactments  of  the  government  was  a  meas- 
ure based  upon  the  protection  idea.  It  came  from  Hamilton. 
In  1816  the  tariff  law  represented  the  protective  idea  and  was 
really  a  Democratic  measure.  But  in  1824  the  protective 
idea  began  to  reveal  a  geographical  division  of  opinion.  The 
South  generally  opposed  it,  while  the  North,  especially  New 
England,  favored  it.  This  division  was  soon  identified  with 
that  between  the  Whigs  and  the  Democrats.  The  "American 
system,"  as  its  friends  were  pleased  to  call  it,  was  adopted  in 
1828  by  the  National  Republicans,  who  became  the  Whigs. 
In  1832  it  was  reaffirmed,  but  was  modified  the  next  year 
on  account  of  the  grave  situation  occasioned  by  the  con- 
duct of  South  Carolina  under  the  influence  of  Vice-President 
Calhoun. 

Its  progress.  By  the  compromise  of  1833,  duties  were 
gradually  reduced  to  a  revenue  basis  by  1842.  In  1846,  under 
the  influence  of  Secretary  Walker,  a  new  tariff  was  enacted, 
based  on  the  revenue,  rather  than  on  the  protective,  idea. 
This  law  was  followed  in  1857  by  a  further  reduction  of  duties, 
until  the  "American  system"  had  been  displaced  by  the 
"revenue  only"  system.  In  1861,  under  the  RepubUcan 
regime,  the  Morrill  tariff  bill  revived  the  protective  feature 
which  still  continues  as  a  governmental  policy.  Various 
efforts  have  been  made  to  abandon  it,  but  without  success. 
In  the  struggle  the  Democratic  party  endorses  the  "revenue 
only  "  principle,  while  the  Rc'iniblican  party  stands  upon  the 
protection  principle.  The  platforms  of  the  two  parties  pro- 
nounce upon  the  issue.  The  McKinlcy  law  of  1890  was  dis- 
tinctively a  protective  measure  and  it  met  with  strenuous 
opposition  from  the  Democratic  members  of  Congress.     The 


414  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Dingley  Act  later  reaffirmed  the  protection  principle,  and  the 
Democratic  members  again  valiantly  fought  its  adoption. 
The  Democratic  national  convention  in  1868  adopted  a  plank 
declaring  for  a  "tariff  for  revenue  upon  foreign  imports,  and 
such  equal  taxation  under  the  internal  revenue  laws  as  will 
afford  incidental  protection  to  domestic  manufacturers,  and 
as  will,  without  impairing  the  revenue,  impose  the  least  burden 
upon,  and  best  promote  and  encourage  the  great  industrial 
interests  of  the  country."  In  1872,  in  the  Greeley  campaign, 
the  convention  agreed  to  remit  the  discussion  to  the  con- 
gressional districts.  In  1876  the  Democratic  convention 
denounced  the  then  existing  tariff  as  a  "masterpiece  of  in- 
justice, inequality,  and  false  pretense."  In  1880  the  Demo- 
cratic party  declared  for  the  "tariff  for  revenue  only."  In 
1884  it  denounced  the  then  existing  tariff  and  demanded  a  reve- 
nue system,  which  would  collect  only  what  was  necessary  to 
administer  the  government  economically.  In  1888  the  Demo- 
cratic party  demanded  tariff  reform.  It  pronounced  the 
Republican  system  unjust,  but  it  did  not  pronounce  in  favor 
of  a  specific  revenue  basis.  It  demanded  a  tariff  that  would 
make  "due  allowance  for  the  difference  between  the  wages 
of  American  and  foreign  labor."  In  1892  it  denounced  "the 
Republican  protection  as  a  fraud,  a  robbery  of  the  great 
majority  of  the  American  people  for  the  benefit  of  the  few." 
It  took  the  Calhoun  view,  that  a  tariff  for  protection  was 
unconstitutional.  It  also  declared  that  the  McKinley  Tariff 
Act  was  the  "culminating  atrocity  of  class  legislation."  In 
1896  it  denounced  the  tariff  as  a  prolific  breeder  of  trusts  and 
monopolies  which  enriches  the  few  at  the  expense  of  the  many. 
These  views  were  reaffirmed  in  1900  and  in  1904.  While  in 
every  campaign  this  question  has  been  more  or  less  discussed 
by  the  ruling  parties  as  an  issue  between  them  upon  the  ground 
of  party  policy,  the  real  point  of  difference  is  a  constitutional 
one.  The  Democratic  party  has  opposed  the  principle  of 
protection  on  the  ground  of  its  discrimination  feature.     It 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      415 

declares  that  it  favors  one  interest  as  against  another,  or  one 
section  as  against  another;  neither  of  which,  they  affirm,  is 
warranted  by  the  Constitution.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Whigs 
first,  then  the  Republicans,  declared  the  protection  principle 
to  be  for  the  general  welfare  of  the  people,  and  therefore  within 
the  sanction  of  the  Constitution.  Upon  this  fine  of  discussion 
the  issue  will  be  determined. 

Civil  service  reform.  The  spoils  system  appears  to  have 
been  a  logical  consequence  of  the  partizan  system  of  govern- 
ment. Its  advocates  assert  that  it  is  essential  to  party  organ- 
ization, to  a  wide-awake  interest  in  public  questions,  to 
effectiveness  in  the  conduct  of  great  campaigns.  They  defend 
it  on  the  ground  that  a  desire  for  place  is  a  laudable  ambition, 
and  that  no  set  of  men  should  hold  a  monopoly  of  the  offices. 
They  justify  the  system  on  the  principle  that  in  a  great  party 
contest  in  which  all  the  people  are  arrayed  in  battle,  the  side 
that  wins  should  be  put  into  possession  of  all  the  offices,  both 
large  and  small.  The  opponents  of  the  system  hold  that  civil 
service  is  a  pubhc  trust,  not  a  party  perquisite,  that  selec- 
tions should  be  made  upon  the  ground  of  personal  fitness,  not 
personal  favoritism.  They  pronounce  against  congressional 
dictation,  arbitrary  removals,  senatorial  usurpation,  and  pohti- 
cal  assessments,  all  attendant  upon  the  spoils  system.  They 
demand  a  competitive  system  for  appointments  instead  of 
personal  favoritism. 

Its  history.  In  1789  the  first  Congress  placed  the  sole  power 
of  removal  in  the  President,  which  gave  him  control  of  a  small 
army  of  office-holders.  In  1820  another  act  vacated  certain 
offices  within  its  scope  at  the  end  of  four  years,  and  empowered 
the  President  to  fill  them  at  his  pleasure.  The  abolition  of 
the  congressional  caucus  and  the  substitution  of  the  delegate 
convention  system  gave  the  Executive  still  further  influence 
over  patronage.  By  the  inauguration  of  Jackson,  the  spoils 
system  swept  the  country.  The  principle  "to  the  victors 
belong    the  spoils  of  office"  became  a  fixed  practise  of  the 


41 6  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

country.  At  the  close  of  the  Jackson  regime  the  Whigs 
adopted  it.  Webster  as  Secretary  of  State  endeavored  to  stem 
the  current  but  without  avail.  Crittenden,  the  Attorney- 
General,  declared  that  nothing  short  of  a  miracle  could  feed 
the  hungry  office-seekers.  With  the  lapse  of  time  the  system 
became  the  practise  as  well  as  the  theory  of  all  parties. 

Necessity  of  reform.  The  Civil  War  and  its  effects  made 
necessary  some  changes  in  the  matter  of  civil  service.  The  war 
largely  increased  the  patronage  of  the  President.  The  sin- 
gular alignment  of  the  political  parties  upon  the  war  issue 
identified  the  party  in  power  with  the  speedy  prosecution  of 
the  war,  which  was  synonymous  with  patriotism,  and  the 
party  out  of  power  with  the  reverse.  This  fact  practically 
closed  the  offices  to  all  but  members  of  the  RepubHcan  party. 
The  system  converted  politics  into  place  hunting,  and  the 
practise  extended  to  all  divisions,  national,  State,  municipahty 
and  county.  It  repudiated  the  practise  of  every  business 
concern,  of  seeking  only  the  best  fitted  incumbent  for  the  place, 
and  continued  to  require  but  the  one  credential,  that  of  undy- 
ing loyalty  to  party.  In  1865  Mr.  Jenckes,  of  Rhode  Island, 
introduced  his  first  measure  in  Congress  to  reform  the  civil 
service,  but  all  attempts  in  tliis  direction  were  futile.  In  1871 
the  President  was  authorized  by  Congress  to  prescribe  rules 
for  admission  to  the  civil  service.  A  commission  was  created 
with  George  W.  Curtis  at  its  head.  This  commission  attempted 
to  substitute  fitness  for  party  loyalty.  The  commission 
died  for  want  of  support.  In  1883  the  Pendleton  Act  was 
passed.  By  this  act  a  commission  was  created  representing 
at  least  two  parties.  It  was  authorized  to  provide  for  com- 
petitive examinations  for  entrance  to  the  civil  service.  It  was 
left  to  the  President  to  designate  the  class  of  service  to 
which  the  examinations  should  be  applied.  President  Arthur 
applied  this  law  to  the  various  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment and  it  has  since  been  extended  by  Cleveland,  Harrison, 
McKinley  and  Roosevelt,  until  at  the  present  time  the  cus- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      417 

torn  of  holding  examinations  of  applicants  applies  to  most  of 
the  service  in  the  government. 

As  an  issue.  The  character  of  civil  ser\ice  as  a  political 
issue  does  not  permit  of  a  contest  upon  principle.  It  will  be 
fought  out  between  the  ins  and  outs.  Those  in  power  will 
always  be  guilty  of  violations  of  civil  service  rules,  while  those 
out  of  power  stand  ready  to  denounce  such  violations. 
Changes  of  administration,  from  one  party  to  the  other,  work 
changes  in  the  pohtical  practise  of  each  party,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Whig  party  during  the  Jackson  regime,  when  it  de- 
nounced the  spoils  system  and  upon  reaching  control  adopted 
the  practises  it  had  denounced.  After  the  Civil  War  the 
Democratic  party  denounced  the  character  of  appointments 
by  the  RepubHcan  party,  in  every  campaign  from  1868  down 
to  the  election  of  Cleveland  in  1884.  It  was  the  main  feature 
of  the  Greeley  campaign.  The  government  under  the 
Roosevelt  regime  took  a  long  step  in  the  direction  of  practi- 
cal efficiency  at  the  expense  of  party  loyalty. 

Foreign  relations.  It  matters  Httle  what  may  be  the  cause 
of  dispute  between  this  and  a  foreign  nation.  National 
pride  is  invariably  stronger  than  partizan  bias.  However 
fierce  the  party  contest  may  be  at  home,  the  indication  of 
foreign  interference  is  sufficient  to  break  down  partizan 
opposition  to  measures  designed  to  maintain  national  honor. 
Our  foreign  poUcy  is  comprehended  in  two  principles;  neu- 
trahty  as  expressed  by  Washington,  and  non-interference  as 
expressed  by  Monroe  in  his  Doctrine.  The  first  insists  upon 
this  nation's  allowing  foreign  countries  to  look  after  their  own 
affairs  without  meddling  on  our  part,  and  the  latter  insists 
upon  all  foreign  nations'  withholding  interference  in  matters 
pertaining  to  the  Western  continent.  The  Yankee  inter- 
preted it  to  mean  that  we  should  attend  to  our  own  business, 
and  allow  all  foreign  countries  to  do  likewise.  Upon  these  two 
propositions  there  is  little  party  difference,  but  occasions  for 
apparent  infringements  have  not  been  wanting. 


41 8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

The  expansion  question.  This  question  naturally  divides 
parties.  Prior  to  the  Civil  War  the  position  was  the  reverse 
of  what  it  has  been  since  the  war.  Louisiana  was  purchased 
by  the  Democrats  under  Jefferson  against  the  fiercest  opposi- 
tion from  the  Federahsts.  In  1819  Florida  was  acquired  by 
the  same  party  under  Monroe,  in  opposition  to  the  remnant 
of  Federalists.  Texas,  in  1845,  was  annexed  by  the  Demo- 
cratic party  under  Polk,  in  face  of  the  most  strenuous  opposi- 
tion from  the  Whigs.  Oregon  was  occupied  at  a  time  when 
the  Democratic  campaign  cry  was  "Fifty-four  forty  or  fight." 
The  vast  Southwest  was  added  to  our  domain  under  Demo- 
cratic auspices.  More  than  once  the  Democratic  party  de- 
clared in  its  national  platform  the  wisdom  of  securing  the 
island  of  Cuba,  and  the  Ostend  Manifesto  indicated  its  willing- 
ness to  adopt  questionable  means  to  acquire  it.  To  all  of  their 
various  measures  of  expanding  the  national  domain,  the 
Democratic  party  had  the  opposition  of  the  party  out  of 
power. 

Since  the  Civil  War.  Alaska  was  added  in  1867  by  Secre- 
tary Seward.  The  purchase  was  ridiculed,  and  Seward  was 
condemned  as  an  incompetent  official.  In  1869  General 
Grant  sent  a  commissioner  to  San  Domingo  to  report  on  the 
advisabihty  of  annexing  that  island  republic  to  the  United 
States.  Upon  the  report  a  treaty  was  drafted.  It  met  with 
opposition  in  the  Senate,  however,  and  failed  of  ratification. 
Another  commission  reported  favorably  on  the  same  project, 
but  Congress  again  rejected  the  annexation.  This  latter 
vote,  however,  did  not  reveal  a  distinct  party  issue.  In  1893 
a  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Hawaii  giving  the  United 
States  sovereignty  over  the  islands  and  the  various  dependen- 
cies was  made.  The  government  of  the  United  States  agreed 
to  pay  $3,250,000  of  the  Hawaiian  debt.  A  change  of  admin- 
istration consequent  upon  the  defeat  of  Harrison  forestalled 
the  ratification  of  the  treaty  and  it  was  withdrawn  by  Presi- 
dent Cleveland.     A  new  treaty  of  annexation  was  made  in 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      419 

1898  under  ]McKinley  which  was  successful,  and  the  Islands 
became  a  part  of  the  United  States. 

The  Spanish-American  War.  By  the  treaty  closing  the 
War  with  Spain,  the  United  States  came  into  possession  of 
Porto  Rico,  the  Philippine  Archipelago,  part  of  the  Ladrone 
Islands,  and  sovereignty  over  the  island  of  Cuba.  This 
treaty  furnished  new  problems  of  expansion  which  were  dis- 
cussed on  partizan  lines.  In  both  1900  and  1904  the  Demo- 
cratic party  made  the  questions  growing  out  of  these  relations 
the  paramount  issue  of  the  campaign.  It  is  thus  noticed  that, 
prior  to  the  Civil  War,  expansion  of  the  national  domain  was 
accomplished  by  the  Democratic  party  in  the  face  of  opposition 
from  the  Federahst  and  Whig  parties,  and  since  the  war  it 
has  been  conducted  by  the  RepubHcan  party  in  the  fiercest 
opposition  from  the  Democratic  party.  While  it  is  true  that 
the  character  of  expansion  since  the  war  is  not  the  same  as 
that  before  the  war,  it  is  also  true  that  the  question  of  expan- 
sion is  an  issue  between  the  ins  and  outs,  rather  than  between 
Democrats  and  Whigs,  or  Repubhcans  and  Democrats. 
Policies  frequently  make  parties,  rather  than  parties  make 
pohcies. 

The  trust  question.  Since  the  Civil  War,  organization  has 
revealed  itself  in  the  contest  between  labor  and  capital.  The 
latter  has  pursued  the  industrial  maxim,  "  where  combination 
is  possible  competition  is  impossible."  The  impulse  to  com- 
bine has  reached  many  of  the  productive  facihties  of  the  coun- 
try, until  specific  hues  of  business,  such  as  coal,  oil,  meats, 
transportation,  etc.,  are  confined  to  a  few  men,  who  maintain 
a  practical  monopoly  of  the  business.  This  organization  of 
industry  has  taken  a  pohtical  coloring.  Investigation  has 
brought  to  light  the  fact  that  these  various  corporations  have 
contributed  greater  or  less  sums  of  money  to  pohtical  parties 
in  the  conduct  of  their  campaigns.  These  investigations 
proved  also  that  corporate  influence  has  operated  in  legisla- 
tive matters  in  some  of  the  States.     With  the  organization 


420  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

of  industry  the  organization  of  labor  has  kept  pace.  Both  of 
these  interests  avoided  separate  poHtical  action.  Later,  labor 
sought  independent  action  and  pronounced  against  monopo- 
listic tendencies.  The  Greenback  party  went  on  record  in 
opposition  to  banks  and  the  issuance  of  bonds,  on  the  ground 
that  it  fostered  a  money  class  to  the  detriment  of  the  general 
welfare.  The  Democratic  party  charged  the  Republican 
party  repeatedly  with  fostering  class  legislation  in  its  tariff 
policy.  It  held  the  RepubHcan  party  responsible  for  the 
existence  of  trusts  built  up  by  legislation  of  favoritism.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Republican  party  enacted  both  in  State 
and  nation  anti-trust  legislation,  such  as  the  Sherman  Anti- 
Trust  law  and  the  Elkins  law.  The  People's  party,  better 
known  as  the  Populist  party,  and  the  various  Labor  and 
Socialist  parties  have  pronounced  in  favor  of  Federal  control, 
if  not  Federal  ownership,  of  the  productive  utihties.  This 
position  has  been  greatly  strengthened  by  the  Rooseveltian 
regime,  which  has  placed  many  interests  under  Federal  regula- 
tion. During  this  regime  a  new  force  has  come  into  politics 
making  partizan  afhhation  count  for  less  and  less,  while  inde- 
pendent politics  has  taken  on  a  new  life,  necessitating  other 
alignments. 


CHAPTER  XXI 
OBSERVATIONS  UPON  THE  ELECTION  OF  PRESIDENT 

Strong  Executive  feared.  Few  subjects  discussed  in  the 
Federal  convention  offered  a  wider  variety  of  opinion  than 
that  of  the  Federal  Executive.  The  experience  of  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  had  been  with  governmental  despotism 
in  the  executive  head  of  the  nation.  George  III  was  not  the 
anachronism  modern  opinion  regards  him.  He  well  repre- 
sented the  ruling  heads  of  nations  in  that  era.  The  experience 
of  the  American  colonies  under  his  regime  prepared  the  colo- 
nists to  suspect  the  purposes  of  their  king.  It  was  but  natural 
that  their  first  step  toward  continental  government  here  in 
America  ignored  the  single  executive  idea.  From  1774  to 
1 78 1,  the  period  of  the  Continental  Congresses,  no  such  head 
was  recognized,  aside  from  the  military  dictatorship  accorded 
to  Washington  as  a  personal  compliment.  From  1781  to 
1789,  the  period  of  the  old  confederation  under  the  Articles 
of  Confederation  and  our  first  governmental  experiment  of 
organic  character,  no  single  head  of  government  was  recog- 
nized. Its  nearest  approach  was  the  Executive  Committee, 
composed  of  one  member  from  each  colony,  or  rather  State,  to 
act  during  the  recess  of  the  Congress. 

Coercive  power  necessary.  In  the  Federal  convention 
which  met  in  response  to  the  urgent  demands  for  a  stronger 
government,  after  incalculable  suffering  under  eight  years  of 
notorious  weakness  due  in  large  part  to  the  absence   of  an 

executive  head  with  some  coercive  power,  the  need  of  such 

421 


42  2  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

head  of  government  was  generally  recognized  and  urged. 
Just  what  he  was  to  be,  and  how  he  was  to  be  secured,  were 
among  the  problems  of  that  great  body.  There  were  some  who 
desired  a  life  Executive;  others,  a  long-term;  while  still  others 
desired  the  shortest  possible  term  consistent  with  the  execu- 
tive function. 

Opinion  in  Federal  convention.  There  were  those  who 
desired  the  Executive  elected  by  the  national  legislature, 
others  by  the  Senate,  still  others  by  the  States;  a  fourth  class 
believed  he  should  be  elected  by  the  people,  while  still  another 
class  insisted  that  he  should  be  chosen  by  an  electoral  college 
created  for  the  specific  purpose  with  discretionary  powers. 
This  last  plan  prevailed,  as  a  compromise  between  the  advo- 
cates of  the  extreme  views  of  restricted  elections  and  the 
advocates  of  popular  elections.  However,  the  original  idea 
of  discretion  was  at  once  abandoned.  Not  since  the  election 
of  John  Adams  has  an  elector  exercised  such  discretion,  except 
in  the  case  of  William  Plumer  of  New  Hampshire  in  1820, 
when  he  refused  to  vote  with  the  college  for  Monroe,  on  the 
ground  of  Monroe's  unfitness.  This  lawful  right  of  an  elector 
to  exercise  his  discretion  to  vote  in  the  college  for  whom  he 
will,  without  reference  to  national  campaigns  or  candidates 
nominated  by  national  conventions,  has  in  one  hundred  years 
given  way  to  the  unwritten  law  of  voting  for  the  candidate 
nominated  by  the  party  in  convention. 

Method  of  choosing  the  electors.  The  electoral  college 
having  been  decided  upon,  the  next  thing  to  claim  the  atten- 
tion of  the  framers  was  the  method  of  choosing  the  electors. 
Various  methods  were  proposed  and  after  lengthy  considera- 
tion the  controversy  ended  in  a  victory  for  the  States,  by 
leaving  the  question  to  the  judgment  of  the  State  legislatures. 
The  section  is  worded  as  follows:  "Each  State  shall  appoint, 
in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  thereof  may  direct,  a  number 
of  electors  equal  to  the  whole  number  of  senators  and  repre- 
sentatives to  which  the  State  may  be  entitled  in  Congress." 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     423 

It  will  readily  occur  that  the  framers  desired  to  guard  well  the 
rights  of  the  States  and  at  the  same  time  balance  the  execu- 
tive function  by  the  legislative  function,  and  permit  the 
choosing  body,  Hmited  in  size  to  offset  any  danger  of  demo- 
cratic tendencies,  to  safeguard  the  welfare  of  the  people. 
The  object  sought  was  an  Executive,  effective  but  not  dan- 
gerous, with  as  much  authority  vested  in  him  as  would  be 
consistent  with  the  liberty  of  the  citizen.  The  consensus  of 
opinion  united  upon  a  single  Executive  to  be  elected  by  a 
select  body  for  a  short  term,  thus  centering  responsibility  in 
one  head  and  subjecting  that  head  to  the  frequently  expressed 
will  of  the  people. 

Lack  of  uniformity.  The  latitude  accorded  to  the  States 
in  the  choice  of  electors  was  a  guaranty  against  uniformity. 
Thirteen  States  acting  independently,  with  freedom  to  em- 
ploy any  method  suited  to  their  convenience,  are  apt  to 
employ  different  methods  of  procedure.  The  Constitution 
left  the  legislatures  free  to  choose  electors  for  President  and 
Vice-President  while  acting  in  the  capacity  of  a  legislature,  or 
permit  the  voters  of  the  State  to  make  the  choice,  or  to  con- 
stitute some  intermediate  body  to  perform  the  duty.  Since 
the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  there  have  been 
employed  three  ways  of  selecting  the  electors:  (i)  By  the 
legislature  of  the  State  acting  as  such;  (2)  By  the  people  of 
the  State  voting  on  a  district  ticket,  and  (3)  By  the  people 
of  the  State  voting  on  a  general  ticket. 

First  election.  In  the  first  presidential  elections,  the 
legislature  method  obtained  quite  generally.  It  was  em- 
ployed by  Connecticut,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  North  Caro- 
lina, South  Carolina  and  Georgia.  The  district  ticket  was 
employed  by  Maryland  and  Virginia,  while  Pennsylvania 
adopted  the  general  ticket.  Massachusetts  and  New  Hamp- 
shire combined  the  methods.  Rhode  Island  and  North 
Carolina  took  no  part  in  the  first  election,  neither  having  rati- 
fied the  Constitution.     New  York  had  not  agreed  upon  the 


424  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

method  of  choice  of  electors  and  consequently  it  took  no  part 
in  the  first  election. 

Method  employed  down  to  1816.  In  the  second  election 
Vermont,  Rhode  Island,  New  York  and  Kentucky  adopted  the 
plan  of  States  allowing  the  legislature  to  choose  the  electors. 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  permitted  the  people  to 
make  the  choice,  the  former  on  the  district,  and  the  latter 
on  the  general,  ticket  plan.  In  the  third  election  Tennessee 
adopted  the  legislature  plan,  while  North  Carolina  adopted 
the  district  plan.  But  httle  change  was  made  down  to  1816, 
when  Rhode  Island  adopted  the  general  ticket  and  was  fol- 
lowed by  North  Carolina  and  New  Jersey  later. 

Legislature  method  and  King  Caucus.  The  Congressional 
Caucus  at  this  time  was  coming  into  bad  repute.  It  was 
referred  to  as  "King  Caucus"  by  its  enemies,  led  by  the 
eccentric  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke.  The  career  of  James 
Monroe  was  linked  with  the  opposition  to  this  method  of 
nomination.  It  was  revealed  that  all  the  electoral  votes 
cast  against  him  in  18 16  came  from  the  States  whose  electors 
were  selected  by  the  legislatures.  The  fact  that  the  anti- 
caucus  leaders  had  favored  Monroe  against  Madison  in  181 2, 
and  the  caucus  leaders  had  favored  Crawford  against  Monroe 
in  1816,  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  Monroe  opposition  being 
confined  to  the  States  selecting  electors  by  the  legislatures, 
tended  to  identify  the  ill-repute  caucus  with  the  legislature 
method  of  choosing  electors  for  President.  This  circum- 
stance brought  the  method  into  disfavor.  The  last  congres- 
sional caucus  was  held  in  1824.  In  the  election  of  that  year 
twenty-four  States  participated.  Only  six  of  that  number 
employed  the  unpopular  legislature  method.  Except  Vir- 
ginia's vote,  the  only  votes  received  by  Crawford,  the  caucus 
candidate,  were  cast  by  these  six  States.  By  1828  only  three 
States,  Delaware,  Vermont  and  South  CaroHna,  retained  the 
legislature  method.  Delaware  and  Vermont  abandoned  it  by 
1832,  and  South  Carolina  not  until  1864. 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      425 

District  and  general  ticket.  It  has  already  been  stated  that 
the  popular  methods  of  selecting  electors  were  by  the  general 
ticket  and  the  district  ticket.  By  the  former  method  the 
voter  casts  his  ballot  for  all  the  electors  to  which  the  State 
is  entitled,  their  names  appearing  on  one  ticket,  while  by  the 
latter  he  votes  for  only  three  electors,  the  one  representing 
his  congressional  district,  and  the  two  representing  the  sena- 
tors. In  case  the  State  has  congressmen-at-large  he  would 
vote  also  for  the  electors  representing  such  congressmen. 
As  early  as  the  Burr  episode  in  1800-1801  contention  arose  over 
the  matter  of  choosing  presidential  electors  and  it  continued 
more  or  less  to  agitate  the  people  until  1816,  when  a  strenuous 
effort  was  made  to  secure  an  amendment  to  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution providing  for  the  uniform  method  throughout  the 
States  of  selecting  electors  by  the  district  plan.  Some  of  the 
States,  especially  Massachusetts  and  North  Carolina,  urged 
the  district  plan,  but,  receiving  no  encouragement,  adopted 
the  general  ticket  plan.  Maryland,  however,  consistently 
followed  the  district  plan  until  1832,  when  she  likewise  adopted 
the  general  ticket  plan.  Michigan  tried  it  as  late  as  1892, 
only  to  abandon  it  at  once. 

Advantage  of  district  plan.  The  district  plan  has  been 
urged  by  its  advocates  on  the  ground  that  it  is  most  represent- 
ative and  that  it  would  prevent  the  great  centers  of  popula- 
tion from  exerting  undue  influence  in  the  elections.  In  the 
latter  case  its  advocates  claim  that  the  tremendous  majorities 
could  count  for  the  centers  only  and  could  not  unduly  influence 
the  other  parts  of  the  country.  It  is  urged  that  it  would 
eliminate  largely  the  power  of  pivotal  States  to  which  is  due 
so  much  corruption  in  our  politics.  It  is  claimed  by  many 
reformers  that  the  pivotal  State  is  a  convenience  only  to  the 
poHtical  mathematician  and  the  ward  politician,  and  is  keenly 
hurtful  to  the  public  weal.  These  reformers  remind  the 
public  that  since  1864  one  of  the  great  parties  has  gone  to 
New  York  for  its  candidate  in  every  quadrennial  election  down 


426  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

to  1896  and  1900,  when  it  went  to  Nebraska,  but  in  the  next 
campaign  it  again  chose  a  New  Yorker,  New  York's  position 
in  an  election  is  due  to  its  large  vote  so  nearly  equally  divided. 
In  the  past  this  State  has  been  a  fair  barometer  of  national 
pohtics.  From  1792  to  1904,  with  three  exceptions,  the 
electoral  vote  of  the  State  was  cast  for  the  successful  candidate. 
The  three  exceptions  were  in  181 2  when  her  vote  was  cast  for 
Clinton,  in  1856  when  it  was  cast  for  Fremont,  and  in  1876 
when  it  was  cast  for  Tilden. 

Dangers  of  pivotal  States.  It  is  urged  that  the  chief  evil 
growing  out  of  a  pivotal  State  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  situa- 
tion enlists  bad  men  and  employs  bad  methods  in  the  canvass. 
The  way  a  pivotal  State  goes,  so  goes  the  nation;  and  it  is 
asserted  that  the  way  the  city  goes,  so  goes  the  State,  and  the 
way  the  purchasable  element  of  the  city  goes,  so  goes  the  city. 
The  inevitable  conclusion  is  that  too  much  power  is  given  to 
the  corrupt  element.  In  confirmation  of  these  assertions  the 
public  attention  is  called  to  the  activity  displayed  in  the  expen- 
diture of  money  in  the  effort  to  control  the  cities.  It  is  argued 
that  the  district  system  would  confine  the  power  of  this  element 
to  the  districts  in  which  the  city  is  located,  instead  of  extending 
it  in  such  a  way  as  to  determine  the  vote  of  the  entire  State. 

Sectionalism  kept  up.  It  is  asserted  that  the  present 
method  assists  in  keeping  alive  a  sectional  feeling.  Too  often 
since  1856,  in  our  national  elections,  have  the  two  sections,  the 
North  and  the  South,  been  arrayed  against  each  other.  The 
united  electoral  vote  from  the  North  is  generally  depended 
upon  to  offset  the  vote  of  the  sohd  South,  a  constant  reminder 
of  war  and  ante-bellum  times.  The  district  ticket  would 
disunite  the  united  North  and  divide  the  sohd  South.  Under 
it  every  State  in  the  Union  in  a  fair  election  would  often  divide 
its  electoral  vote. 

Defeats  voice  of  people.  The  general  ticket  is  also  responsi- 
ble for  the  disparity  between  the  electoral  and  the  popular 
vote.     As  has  been  stated,  the  candidate  securing  the  majority 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      427 

of  the  popular  votes  does  not  necessarily  obtain  the  major- 
ity of  the  electoral  votes.  For  instance,  in  1884,  in  New  York 
and  Pennsylvania  combined,  Blaine  received  at  least  80,000 
more  votes  than  Cleveland,  but  the  latter  received  thirty-six 
electoral  votes  while  the  former  received  only  thirty-two. 
Such  cases  as  this  are  the  logical  result  of  the  electoral 
system. 

Remedy  suggested.  There  are  those  who  advocate  the 
total  eUmination  of  the  electoral  system  and  the  adoption  of 
an  amendment  providing  for  the  election  of  the  Executive 
by  a  direct  vote  of  the  people.  The  old  system,  they  assert,  is 
worn  out.  This  agitation  has  frequently  taken  the  form  of  a 
recommendation  of  an  amendment,  but  has  never  succeeded 
in  winning  the  constitutional  two-thirds  majority. 

Resume.  All  the  early  States  except  Virginia,  Maryland 
and  Ohio,  in  the  first  elections,  employed  the  legislature  plan. 
It  was  employed  but  once  by  Pennsylvania  (1800),  by 
New  Hampshire  (1800),  and  by  Louisiana  (1824).  It  was 
employed  continuously  by  Connecticut  to  1820;  by  New 
York  to  1824;  by  Delaware  to  1828,  and  by  South  Carohna 
to  i860.  The  District  ticket  plan  was  used  but  once  by 
Pennsylvania  in  1816;  by  Illinois  in  1824,  and  by  New  York 
in  1828;  and  twice  by  Tennessee  and  Maine  (1824-28).  It 
was  continuously  employed  by  North  Carohna  to  1808;  by 
Virginia  to  1816,  except  the  elections  of  Jefferson;  by  Massa- 
chusetts to  1824,  except  the  first  election  of  Jefferson;  by  Ken- 
tucky from  1800  to  1824,  and  by  Maryland  from  1788  to  1832. 
The  general  ticket  which  to-day  is  employed  by  all  the  States, 
superseded  the  other  methods  quite  early.  It  has  been  em- 
ployed continuously  by  Pennsylvania  from  1800,  except  in  the 
election  of  Monroe  in  181 6;  by  New  Hampshire  from  1788, 
except  in  the  first  election  of  Jefferson;  and  by  all  the  States 
from  1828,  except  Maryland  which  adopted  the  method  in 
1832,  South  Carolina  which  adopted  it  in  1868  and  the 
instances  of  Colorado  in  1890  and  of  Michigan  in  1892. 


42  8  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

Work  after  the  people  have  voted.  To  render  effective 
the  constitutional  power  relative  to  the  installation  of  the 
American  Executive,  Congress  has  enacted  various  laws. 
By  these  enactments,  now  in  force,  there  are  four  important 
days  in  the  process:  (i)  When  the  electors  are  chosen,  which 
is  at  present  uniform  throughout  the  country;  (2 )  When  these 
electors  meet  in  their  respective  States  and  cast  their  votes 
for  President  and  Vice-President,  after  which  they  seal  the 
returns  and  send  one  copy  by  special  messenger  to  the  presiding 
officer  of  the  United  States  Senate,  another  copy  by  mail  to 
him,  and  still  another  copy  is  deposited  with  the  Federal 
judge  in  the  district;  (3)  The  day  on  which  the  presiding 
officer  of  the  Senate,  in  the  presence  of  the  members  of  both 
Houses,  counts  the  votes  and  declares  the  result,  and  (4) 
The  day  on  which  the  President-elect  and  Vice-President- 
elect are  inaugurated  and  assume  the  duties  of  their  respective 
offices. 

The  Presidential  Succession  Law  of  1886  covers  all  emer- 
gencies, except  in  the  case  of  the  death  of  both  President- 
elect and  Vice-President-elect  between  the  date  of  the  official 
count,  the  second  Wednesday  of  February,  and  the  inaugura- 
tion on  the  fourth  of  March. 

Failure  to  make  a  choice.  The  electoral  system  for  choice 
of  Chief  Magistrate  still  prevails.  In  accordance  with  this 
system  a  presidential  election  has  been  conducted  every  fourth 
year  since  the  first  election  in  1788,  and  during  this  time  the 
people  have  failed  to  make  a  choice  at  least  three  times.  The 
first  time  was  in  1800,  the  second  in  1824,  and  the  third  in 
1876. 

The  disputed  presidency.  The  last  instance  of  a  failure 
of  the  electoral  college  to  make  a  choice  of  President  is  the 
historic  Hayes-Tilden  campaign  of  1876.  The  story  of  this 
dispute  has  so  often  been  told  that  a  mere  recital  of  the  saHent 
facts  will  suffice.  Thirty-eight  States  took  part  in  this  elec- 
tion, including  Colorado,  whose  electors  were  appointed  by 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      429 

the  State  legislature.  Since  the  close  of  the  war  most  of  the 
Southern  States  had  given  their  electoral  votes  to  the  Republi- 
can candidates,  because  of  the  method  and  results  of  Recon- 
struction. Gradually  by  various  means  these  States  returned 
to  the  Democratic  fold.  By  1876  these  States  were  classed  as 
doubtful  with  advantage  strongly  inclined  to  the  Democrats. 
Aside  from  these  States,  the  doubtful  column  included  New 
York,  Indiana,  Connecticut  and  New  Jersey.  The  prestige 
of  Tilden  in  his  own  State  (New  York)  and  Hendricks  in  his 
(Indiana)  gave  the  Democrats  the  advantage  in  both  of  those 
States.  Within  a  few  hours  of  the  closing  of  the  polls  the 
Democrats  made  official  claims  to  the  victory.  The  follow- 
ing morning,  November  7,  most  of  the  newspapers  of  the 
country  conceded  the  election  of  Tilden. 

A  complicated  situation.  The  whole  vote  cast  was  369. 
The  necessary  majority  was  185.  The  Democrats  claimed 
203  for  Tilden.  The  Republicans  claimed  185  for  Hayes. 
Both  parties  claimed  the  electoral  votes  of  Oregon,  South 
Carolina,  Florida  and  Louisiana.  This  was  the  situation  at 
the  beginning  of  a  most  serious  dispute  which  was  a  severe 
test  of  republican  institutions.  The  four  months  intervening 
between  the  election  and  the  inauguration  of  Hayes  were 
fraught  with  the  gravest  dangers.  Double  returns  were  made 
and  sent  in  from  the  four  States  in  dispute.  In  all  these 
States  the  contest  took  on  the  bitterest  partizan  character. 
President  Grant,  fearing  violence  in  connection  with  the 
count  in  the  States,  recommended  that  each  party  despatch 
representatives  to  the  States  to  witness  the  proceedings.  He 
also  instructed  General  Sherman  to  "see  that  the  proper  and 
legal  boards  of  canvassers  are  unmolested  in  the  performance 
of  their  duties."  The  President's  instructions  continued, 
"Should  there  be  any  grounds  of  suspicion  of  fraudulent 
counting  on  either  side,  it  should  be  reported  and  denounced 
at  once.  No  man  worthy  of  the  office  of  President  woukl  be 
willing  to  hold  the  office  if  counted  in,  placed  there  by  fraud; 


430 


POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 


either  party  can  afford  to  be  disappointed  in  the  result,  but 
the  country  cannot  afiford  to  have  the  result  tainted  by  the 
suspicion  of  illegal  or  false  returns." 

Proceedings  in  the  States.  This  prompt  action  of  the 
President  was  presented  later  on  by  some  of  the  Democrats  as 
an  interference  unwarranted  by  the  facts.  However,  the 
situation  as  revealed  justified  the  action.  In  Louisiana  chaos 
reigned.  There  were  two  governments  sparring  for  supremacy. 
That  State  had  two  governors,  two  returning  boards,  two  sets 
of  returns,  and  two  electoral  colleges,  each  insisting  upon  its 
rightful  authority.  In  Florida  both  sets  of  returns  had  a 
semi-official  character.  The  Democratic  electors  were  certi- 
fied to  under  the  authority  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State 
in  a  decision  declaring  the  returns  from  the  counties  final. 
These  returns  gave  Tilden  a  small  majority  in  the  State.  The 
State  canvassers  certified  to  the  election  of  the  Hayes  electors, 
and  their  certificate  was  endorsed  by  the  governor  of  the  State. 
In  South  Carolina  the  Republican  electors  had  proper  certifi- 
cates, but  the  Democrats  charged  that  they  had  been  procured 
by  aid  of  Federal  troops.  In  Oregon  a  pecuUar  situation  pre- 
vailed. The  governor  refused  to  certify  to  the  election  of  a 
certain  Repubhcan  elector  on  the  ground  of  ineligibility,  and 
granted  it  to  the  Democratic  elector  receiving  the  highest 
vote  on  the  Democratic  ticket.  When  the  Repubhcan  electors 
were  refused  certification,  they  met  and  voted  for  Hayes. 
The  Democratic  elector  holding  the  governor's  certificate 
appointed  two  other  electors,  and  proceeded  to  cast  the  vote 
of  the  State  for  Tilden.  These  four  States  cast  twenty-two 
electoral  votes,  all  of  which  were  needed  to  elect  Hayes,  with 
no  vote  to  spare.  Tilden  had  184  votes  undisputed  and  there- 
fore needed  but  one  more  to  win  the  contest.  The  face  of  the 
returns,  according  to  the  Republican  count,  gave  Tilden  a 
plurality  of  the  popular  vote  of  252,224. 

How  the  count  was  conducted.  For  the  first  time  in  our 
history  the  election  of  Chief  Magistrate  was  in  doubt  after 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      431 

the  returns  were  made,  and  the  question  of  determining  the 
result  became  at  once  a  serious  problem.  Open  charges  of 
fraud  on  both  sides  were  freely  made.  It  was  a  new  phase 
of  the  election  of  President  of  the  United  States.  The  ques- 
tion of  counting  the  vote  has  been  an  interesting  one  from  the 
beginning.  The  Constitution  provides  that,  "The  President 
of  the  Senate  shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives,  open  all  the  certificates  and  the  votes 
shall  then  be  counted."  The  questions  at  once  arise:  "Who 
counts  the  votes,  the  President  of  the  Senate,  the  members  of 
Congress,  or  both?"  "Does  the  President  of  the  Senate  do 
the  counting  with  the  members  of  Congress  as  witnesses?" 
The  possibihty  of  a  dispute  arising  over  the  count,  various 
attempts  were  made  to  settle  such  questions  but  without 
success. 

The  Twenty-second  rule.  Finally,  in  1865,  the  famous 
Twenty-second  rule  was  adopted.  It  provided  for  the 
appointment  of  three  tellers,  one  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  and 
two  on  the  part  of  the  House.  These  tellers  were  to  examine 
the  certificates  of  the  electoral  votes  in  the  presence  of  the  two 
Houses,  make  lists  of  the  same,  and  deliver  them  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  who  then  is  required  to  "announce  the 
state  of  the  vote  and  the  names  of  the  persons,  if  any,  elected." 
If  any  question  should  arise  among  the  tellers  in  the  counting 
of  any  votes,  the  Senate  should  withdraw  and  the  question 
should  be  submitted  to  that  body  for  its  decision.  The  same 
question  should  also  be  submitted  to  the  House  for  its  decision. 
Debate  in  either  House  upon  the  question  was  forbidden. 
No  question  could  be  decided  affirmatively  without  the  con- 
current vote  of  the  two  Houses.  By  this  law  an  objection 
from  either  House  is  sufficient  to  reject  the  vote  of  a  State. 
This  rule  was  the  source  of  much  feeling  in  the  count  of  1869, 
when  an  attempt  was  made  to  reject  the  votes  of  Georgia. 
In  the  Greeley  campaign  the  votes  of  Georgia,  Arkansas  and 
Louisiana  were  rejected  under  this  rule. 


432  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

The  count  in  1877.  Both  in  1801  and  in  1825  the  Con- 
stitution provided  the  remedy.  But  in  1877  neither  the 
Constitution  nor  the  Twenty-second  rule  offered  a  remedy. 
The  Constitution  provided  a  way  for  cases  of  failure  to  elect 
a  President,  but  in  this  case  both  parties  claimed  the  election. 
The  Twenty-second  rule  specified  the  method  of  counting  the 
vote,  but  in  this  case  both  parties  claimed  the  right  to  make 
the  count.  The  Constitution  provides  that  the  count  shall 
be  made  in  the  presence  of  both  Houses.  In  this  case  the 
Senate  was  Republican,  and  the  House  Democratic.  The  old 
question  "Who  shall  make  the  count?"  was  still  open  to  dis- 
pute. If  the  President  of  the  Senate  is  the  authority,  then 
the  Hayes  electors  would  be  counted.  If  the  two  Houses 
are  the  authority,  then  there  would  be  no  choice,  as  the 
Twenty-second  rule  forbade  any  vote  to  be  rejected  without 
a  concurrent  vote,  and  in  this  case  neither  House  favored 
rejection. 

The  Joint  Electoral  Commission.  Finally  a  compromise 
was  reached  in  the  agreement  to  submit  the  dispute  to  a  Joint 
Electoral  Commission,  to  be  composed  of  fifteen  members: 
five  from  the  Senate  (three  Republicans  and  two  Democrats), 
five  from  the  House  (three  Democrats  and  two  Republicans), 
and  five  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  (two 
Republicans,  two  Democrats,  and  one  Independent).  This 
was  a  Democratic  measure,  although  Mr.  Tilden  strenuously 
opposed  it  from  the  beginning.  In  the  House  158  Democrats 
voted  for  it,  and  only  18  voted  against  it;  while  33  Republi- 
cans voted  for  it,  and  68  voted  against  it.  The  personnel  of 
the  Commission  insured  the  nearest  possible  approach  to  a  fair 
result.  As  originally  planned  the  Commission  was  to  be  con- 
stituted of  seven  Republicans,  seven  Democrats,  and  one 
Independent.  It  was  agreed  that  David  Davis  of  Illinois 
was  to  be  the  fifteenth  member.  Judge  Davis  accepted  an 
election  to  the  Senate  which  prevented  his  serving  on  the 
Commission,  and  Justice  Bradley  was  substituted.     He  voted 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     433 

^vith  the  Republican  members  and  signed  the  certificate  giving 
Hayes  the  electoral  votes.  The  other  seven  members  refused 
to  sign  the  report.  The  Senate  adopted  the  report  of  the 
Commission,  but  the  House  rejected  it.  According  to  the 
Twenty-second  joint  rule  no  vote  could  be  rejected  without  a 
concurrent  vote,  and  consequently  the  report  of  the  Commis- 
sion stood  as  the  legal  adjustment  of  the  matter. 

The  result.  This  adjustment  will  remain  a  source  of  dis- 
pute. There  were  charges  and  counter-charges  of  frauds  in  the 
interest  of  partizan  victory.  The  investigations  both  at  the 
time  and  at  subsequent  times  reveal  grounds  for  such  charges. 
Aside  from  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  charges,  the  Democratic 
party  was  unfortunate  in  the  manner  of  the  adjustment.  It 
appears  that  had  the  Democrats  acted  in  accordance  with 
Tilden's  desire,  namely,  that  the  members  should  hold  out 
until  after  the  4th  of  March,  when  the  election  would  have 
been  taken  to  the  House  of  Representatives  by  the  force 
of  the  Constitution,  Tilden  would  have  been  elected.  But 
this  position,  which  appealed  to  Tilden  as  a  constitutional  dis- 
entanglement of  the  troublesome  affair,  did  not  appeal  to  the 
Democratic  leaders  in  and  out  of  Congress.  The  modifica- 
tion of  the  Twenty-second  rule,  in  whose  trap  the  Democrats 
were  caught,  was  also  unfortunate  for  the  Democrats,  and  it 
could  not  have  been  modified  without  Democratic  support. 
Still  a  third  misfortune  for  the  Democrats  arose  from  the 
withdrawal  of  Judge  Davis.  Had  he  remained  on  the  Bench, 
it  is  possible  that  the  result  of  the  contest  would  have  been 
different.  But,  by  the  vote  of  the  Illinois  legislature,  he  was 
chosen  as  the  Democratic  senator-elect  from  that  State,  which 
precluded  his  serving  on  the  Commission. 

Lessons  from  the  decision.  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
justice  of  the  finding  of  the  Commission,  the  acceptance  of  its 
decision  by  the  American  people  speaks  volumes.  Up  to  the 
very  day  before  the  inauguration  of  Hayes,  threats  were  madt' 
and  statements  heard  on  all  sides  that  Tilden  would  be  inau- 


434  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

gurated.  These  warnings  became  so  ominous  that  President 
Grant  was  induced  to  take  precaution  to  see  that  no  violence 
would  be  perpetrated.  Hayes  had  previous  to  the  5th  of 
March,  the  day  on  which  he  was  inaugurated,  taken  the  oath 
of  ofhce,  the  fourth  being  Sunday.  After  the  strain  of  months 
of  the  most  intense  excitement,  during  which  extravagant 
statements  had  been  heard  on  all  sides,  the  climax  was  reached 
on  the  second  of  March,  a  little  after  four  o'clock  in  the  morn- 
ing, when  the  President  of  the  Senate  made  the  official  an- 
nouncement of  the  election  of  Hayes.  The  country  was 
thrown  into  paroxysms  of  excitement.  To  the  great  credit  of 
all  the  people  the  decision  of  the  Commission  was  acquiesced 
in,  and  Hayes  was  regarded  as  the  legally  constituted  Presi- 
dent by  most  of  the  people.  But  a  very  respectable  portion  of 
the  Democratic  party  contends  that  Tilden  was  deprived  of  the 
high  office  to  which  they  insist  he  was  legally  elected.  The 
event  at  any  rate  put  the  patriotism  of  the  American  people 
to  the  severest  test,  a  test  which  it  is  hoped  will  never  again  be 
repeated. 


CHAPTER  XXII 
CONCLUSION 

The  American  type.  An  attempt  has  been  made  in  this 
volume  to  trace  the  history  of  poHtical  theory  in  the  United 
States,  and  account  for  the  unique  party  organization  found 
here.  In  it,  the  peculiar  t^-pe  of  American  pohtical  theory 
is  easily  observed  —  a  t>pe  pecuhar  in  itself ,  especially  when 
compared  with  those  of  European  countries.  While  following 
the  general  course  of  pohtical  theory  of  all  modern  govern- 
ments, the  American  type  has  taken  on  a  character  different 
from  all  others.  In  no  other  country  have  the  same  conditions 
obtained.  Here  was  a  xdrgin  soil,  uncontaminated  by  old- 
world  ideas  of  society,  rehgion  and  government.  To  occupy 
this  soil  there  came  a  people  peculiarly  adapted  to  plant  such 
a  system  as  was  planted  —  the  American  democracy,  a  re- 
pubhc,  a  representative  democracy.  The  people  were  men 
and  women  of  talent,  of  conscience,  and  of  deep  convictions, 
as  well  as  of  determination.  Heredity  helped  furnish  the  seed, 
and  environment  assisted  in  preparing  the  soil. 

The  party  system.  Perhaps  the  most  unique  feature  of  the 
American  system  is  the  party  system,  with  all  its  attendant 
machinery.  This  system  is  an  evolution,  rather  than  a 
creation.  It  was  a  natural  outgrowth  of  conditions.  The 
very  motive  which  prompted  the  earliest  settlements,  insured 
a  distinct  political  system.  The  oppression  from  which  the 
fathers  fled  prompted  that  freedom  of  speech  and  of  worship, 
the  consequence  of  which  is  contention,  which  is  another 

435 


436  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

expression  of  party  spirit.  The  variety  of  opinion,  both 
poHtical  and  religious,  together  with  the  hmitless  expanse  of 
the  new  world,  insured  a  lack  of  uniformity  of  opinion  and 
party  divisions  on  questions,  both  local  and  general.  Condi- 
tions invariably  confronting  a  new  government  necessitated 
a  union  of  effort  and  consequent  variety  of  method,  a  natural 
condition  for  the  formation  of  parties.  This  situation  accounts 
in  part  for  the  numerous  religious  denominations  which  have 
sprung  up  in  every  part  of  the  country.  But  while  religious 
differences  gave  Hfe  to  various  denominations,  and  poHtical 
differences  permitted  separate  pohtical  parties,  the  spirit  of 
democracy  was  sufficient,  that  between  democracy  and  aris- 
tocracy the  latter  had  no  footing.  The  nearest  approach  was 
the  pre-Revolutionary  division,  the  Tory  versus  the  Whig. 
While  democracy  was  supreme  in  the  new  world,  its  very  sug- 
gestion imphed  variety  of  method. 

Foundation  principles.  As  has  been  stated,  the  rational 
basis  for  party  division  in  this  country  is  the  contention  be- 
tween liberty  and  authority.  Leaders  have  arisen  who  stood 
as  the  opponents  of  these  principles  in  the  American  system. 
Parties  have  been  organized  upon  these  principles  as  funda- 
mental. In  this  party  contention,  each  factor  has  revealed 
both  its  strength  and  its  weakness,  and  in  obedience  to  the 
law  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  the  resultant  of  the  struggle 
is  a  system  which  incorporates  both  elements  as  co-ordinate. 
Upon  these  two  fundamental  elements,  liberty  and  authority, 
the  structure  of  the  American  system  has  been  erected. 

Party  control.  For  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  the  party 
system  has  been  maturing.  From  1789  to  1801  the  Federalist 
party  had  control  of  the  machinery  of  the  government. 
During  much  of  this  time  aggressive  opposition  was  offered  by 
the  Anti-Federalist,  better  known  as  Republican  party.  From 
1 80 1  to  1845  the  RepubHcan  party,  later  called  the  Democratic 
party,  held  control  with  the  possible  single  exception  of  the 
younger  Adams,  1825-29.     While  he  was  a  RepubHcan,  Adams 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES     437 

differed  from  his  party  upon  the  construction  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. Yet  as  a  Republican  he  had  conducted  the  Foreign 
Relations  department  of  Monroe's  Cabinet,  of  which  he  was 
regarded  the  most  distinguished  member.  Harrison's  inau- 
guration in  1 84 1  was  the  introduction  of  the  Whig  party  to 
power,  but  the  death  of  Harrison  on  April  4,  1841,  and  the 
inauguration  of  Tyler  Kmited  the  Whig  control  to  a  single 
month.  Tyler  broke  with  his  party  on  the  Bank  question, 
and  returned  to  his  former  Democratic  allegiance.  In  1845 
Polk's  inauguration  permitted  the  Democrats  to  continue 
their  policy.  In  1849  the  election  of  Taylor  gave  the  country 
its  only  Whig  administration.  Taylor  died  in  office,  but  his 
pohcy  was  continued  by  his  successor,  Fillmore.  The  acces- 
sion of  Pierce  to  office,  in  1853,  inaugurated  the  Democratic 
policy  which  continued  with  Pierce  and  Buchanan  down  to 
1 86 1.  In  the  latter  year  Lincoln  inaugurated  the  Repubhcan 
rule  which  continued  without  interruption  for  twenty-four 
years.  It  then  gave  way  to  the  Democratic  policy  under 
Cleveland.  After  four  years  the  Republicans  returned  to 
power  under  the  second  Harrison,  who  after  four  years  again 
gave  way  to  the  Democrats  under  Cleveland.  After  four 
years  Cleveland  gave  way  to  the  Republicans  under  McKinley. 
Resume.  A  resume  shows  that  the  FederaHst  party  con- 
trolled the  government  twelve  years,  the  old  Republican  party 
twenty-four  years,  the  National  Republican  party,  under 
John  Q.  Adams,  four  years,  the  Democratic  party,  including 
the  Tyler  regime,  thirty-six  years,  the  Wliig  four  years,  the 
Republican  party  forty  years  ending  with  Roosevelt  in  1909. 
During  this  period  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  the  gov- 
ernment has  been  administered,  at  one  time  or  other,  by  six 
different  parties,  if  the  parties  are  distinguished  by  name;  if 
by  poHtical  theory,  only  two  have  been  in  control.  The 
old  Republican  and  the  modern  Democratic  party  held  the 
same  theory  of  government,  and  should  be  identified  in  name 
as  well  as  in  principle.     The  Federalist,  the  National  Repub- 


438  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND  PARTY 

lican,  the  Whig,  and  the  Repubhcan,  all  advocated  similar 
principles,  and  should  be  regarded  as  the  same  party  with 
different  names.  Taking  this  view  of  parties,  the  one  has 
stood  from  the  beginning  for  strong  central  government,  the 
other  for  local  self-government.  The  one  employed  the  broad 
or  loose  construction  of  the  Constitution,  the  other  the  narrow 
or  strict  construction.  During  the  one  hundred  and  twenty 
years  of  national  existence,  each  party  has  conducted  the 
affairs  of  the  nation  one  half  of  the  time.  One  of  the  most 
striking  features  of  this  party  struggle  is  the  remarkable 
evenness  with  which  these  contests  have  been  fought  out. 
While  almost  the  entire  electorate  appears  at  the  polls  to 
express  its  conviction  on  public  questions,  only  a  few  thou- 
sands make  up  the  majority  of  one  party  over  the  other. 

Debt  due  the  parties.  To  the  Federahst  party  the  country 
owes  the  organization  of  the  government  and  the  inaugura- 
tion of  the  government's  poHcies.  Under  Washington  and 
Hamilton  the  finances  were  provided,  a  high  credit  was  estab- 
lished, neutrality  was  announced  which  has  been  consistently 
followed  to  this  day,  a  strong  and  vigorous  foreign  policy  was 
outlined.  To  the  old  Republican  party,  the  country  is 
indebted  for  much  of  its  liberties,  for  the  freedom  of  speech,  of 
the  press,  of  worship,  and  the  right  of  petition.  To  it  also 
the  States  owe  the  largest  recognition  of  local  self-government, 
and  also  the  first  step  toward  the  marvelous  expansion  which 
the  country  has  experienced  in  the  one  hundred  and  twenty 
years  of  its  national  existence.  To  the  National  Republican 
party,  the  country  owes  the  fostering  of  the  constructive 
poHcy,  in  the  estabhshment  of  internal  improvements,  the 
defense  of  a  system  of  National  Banks,  and  the  adoption  of 
the  policy  of  protection  of  American  industries.  This  latter 
was  denominated  by  Clay,  one  of  its  greatest  defenders,  as 
the  "American  system,"  and  by  Randolph,  one  of  its  fiercest 
opponents  as  the  "bill  of  Abominations."  To  the  Whig 
party  the  country  owes  a  continued  fostering  of  these    prin- 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE   UNITED   STATES      439 

ciples.  To  the  Democratic  party  is  due  the  continued  defense 
of  the  cardinal  principles  of  the  old  Republican  party.  The 
work  of  expansion,  begun  by  that  party  in  the  purchases  of 
Louisiana  and  Florida,  was  continued  by  it  in  the  annexation 
of  Texas,  the  occupation  of  Oregon,  the  prosecution  of  the 
Mexican  War  with  the  consequent  accession  of  the  vast  South- 
west. Its  expansion  principle  was  displayed  in  the  party 
platform  committing  the  party  to  the  annexation  of  Cuba. 
To  this  party  the  country  owes  also  the  prominence  of  the 
State  rights  doctrine.  One  of  its  fundamental  principles  is 
the  protection  of  the  many  against  the  few.  It  therefor© 
declaims  against  special  privileges  and  abuses  of  corporate 
wealth.  Its  platform  is  the  welfare  of  the  many  and  special 
privilege  to  none.  To  the  Republican  party,  the  country 
owes  the  abolition  of  slavery  and  the  citizenship  of  the  negro. 
To  it,  mainly  is  due  the  prosecution  of  the  war  and  the  preser- 
vation of  the  Union.  It  was  during  the  period  of  its  incum- 
bency that  new  applications  of  electricity  were  made,  various 
products  of  the  mine  were  improved,  such  as  steel,  a  vast 
impulse  in  transportation  was  experienced,  and  such  a  com- 
mercial awakening  as  the  world  never  saw  before.  Coincident 
with  this  commercial  awakening,  vast  combinations  of  capital 
were  made,  the  impulse  to  prevent  competition  became 
regnant,  and  corporate  greed  threatened  the  welfare  of  the 
many.  While  the  party  in  power  took  to  itself  the  honor  of 
first  class,  it  denied  the  odium  of  the  second  which  its  oppo- 
nents attempted  to  fasten  upon  it.  The  whole  truth  is  not  in 
the  position  of  either  party.  The  student  of  poHtical  history 
must  recognize  genuine  worth  as  revealed  in  substantial 
results  of  the  governmental  agencies  called  political  parties. 
Only  the  arrogant  citizen  is  incapable  of  beholding  the  great 
value  of  these  organizations. 

Legitimate  objections  to  the  party  system.  The  party 
system  of  the  nation  is  open  to  severe  criticism.  Its  rigidity 
at  times  approaches  a  state  of  tyranny,  which  not  infre- 


440  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

quently  takes  from  the  citizen  the  actual  fruits  of  a  free  ballot. 
This  is  accomplished  through  the  machinations  of  that  modern 
poUtical  creation  known  as  "boss."  This  would-be-leader 
holds  the  ballot  in  the  hands  of  the  voters  as  so  much  stock 
in  trade,  and  looks  upon  an  office  as  a  party  perquisite,  rather 
than  as  a  public  trust.  Through  this  influence  the  party 
machinery  has  at  times  come  into  the  possession  of  mercenary 
men  who  use  it  for  personal  aggrandizement.  The  American 
Democracy  is  a  fertile  field  for  the  operation  of  this  character 
of  leadership.  The  chief  arena  of  the  "boss  "  is  in  the  "ring," 
and  his  chief  reward  is  a  form  of  speculation.  Often  this 
element  exercises  controUing  influence  in  great  poHtical  con- 
ventions in  defiance  of  the  wishes  of  the  people  at  large. 
Too  often  the  excuse  of  those  who  do  not  exercise  the  suffrage 
privilege  is  that  it  does  not  matter  what  the  voter  does,  the 
result  is  always  determined  by  the  politicians,  regardless  of 
what  the  voter  says  or  does.  Among  leaders  of  the  mercenary 
type,  political  principle  means  nothing.  When  the  parties 
come  under  the  control  of  this  element,  party  lines  frequently 
cannot  be  distinguished.  The  "  bosses"  of  the  parties  con- 
sort to  insure  victory,  not  for  the  ticket  so  much  as  for  them- 
selves. Another  source  of  legitimate  criticism  is  that  the 
party  system  seeks  the  man  of  availability,  rather  than  of 
ability.  In  other  words,  it  substitutes  the  politician  for 
the  statesman.     This  criticism  does  not  always  hold  true. 

What  of  the  future.  All  these  charges  have  some  basis  in 
fact,  but  there  is  abundant  reason  to  believe  that  the  evils 
are  but  temporary.  A  continuance  of  the  evils  depends 
largely  upon  the  spoils  system.  This  system  has  already  felt 
the  lash  of  disapproval,  and  the  evil  is  lessening  with  the  lapse 
of  time.  The  claims  of  a  self-appointed  leader  never  appeal 
for  support  beyond  his  ability  to  perform  his  duties.  The 
real  danger  lies  in  the  atrophy  of  the  people.  Where  pub- 
lic opinion  is  wide  awake  the  rule  of  the  boss  is  of  short 
duration.     He  can  exist  only  by  the  passiveness  of  the  people, 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES      441 

whose  sovereign  will  he  ignores  when  it  is  inactive.  Recent 
events  show  that  when  the  administration,  either  of  a  State 
or  of  a  municipality,  becomes  careless  of  the  rights  of  the 
many,  the  people  repudiate  that  administration,  and  when  a 
national  administration  fearlessly  espouses  a  cause  the  people 
warmly  endorse  it.  The  charge  that  money  can  control  the 
electorate  is  without  foundation  in  fact.  Experience  has 
proved  that  the  abuse  of  privileges  by  great  money  interests 
has  led  to  the  most  rigid  governmental  discipline  of  those 
interests.  The  enthusiasm  which  has  greeted  the  municipal 
ownership  of  public  utiHtieS  in  various  cities  of  the  country, 
is  an  example  of  public  awakening  rather  than  of  economic 
wisdom.  The  enlargement  of  the  powers  of  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  and  the  strides  toward  governmental 
regulation  of  railroads,  telegraphs,  coal  mining,  and  the  trans- 
portation of  oil,  as  well  as  the  close  inspection  of  meats  pre- 
pared for  the  market  by  the  great  packing  houses,  are  all 
evidence  of  the  homage  that  money  is  compelled  to  pay  to  the 
authority  of  the  people.  This  fact  emphasizes  the  necessity 
of  a  continuous  interest  on  the  part  of  the  people  in  matters  of 
public  concern.  It  also  indicates  that  the  supreme  factor  in 
American  politics  is  an  awakened  public  conscience.  In  its 
presence  party  tyranny  quails,  and  the  party  "boss"  is 
repudiated. 

Factors  in  promoting  such  awakening.  The  progress  of 
civil  service  reform  has  greatly  lessened  the  tyranny  of  party 
machinery.  The  extension  of  the  influence  of  the  independent 
voter  has  also  wrought  to  the  same  end.  The  recent  emphasis 
of  local  issues  augments  this  tendency.  Interests  in  the  cities 
are  sufficient  to  confine  municipal  activity  to  them,  rather  than 
to  extend  it  to  national  principles.  It  is  a  frequent  occur- 
rence that  the  general  election  results  differently  from  the 
local  city  elections.  This  is  due  to  the  independent  voter. 
This  sentiment  frequently  takes  the  form  of  organization 
aside  from  party,  such  as  the  various  Civic  Leagues,  Muni- 


442  POLITICAL  THEORY  AND   PARTY 

cipal  Voters  Leagues,  Betterment  Clubs,  and  various  other 
organizations  whose  purpose  is  suggested  by  the  names  they 
bear.  The  energy  of  these  numerous  organizations  is  expended 
in  the  interest  of  the  community  regardless  of  political  parties. 
Not  infrequently  their  numbers  and  influence  give  them  the 
balance  of  power,  with  abiHty  to  dictate  either  the  candidate, 
the  policy,  or  both. 

Healthful  symptoms.  Party  organization  is  necessary  in  a 
government  of  public  opinion.  It  is  the  manner  in  which  that 
opinion  is  centrahzed  and  expressed.  It  is  the  agency  by 
which  pubUc  opinion  passes  from  the  stage  of  mere  opinion 
into  legal  enactment  after  mature  consideration  of  its  merit. 
It  is  the  means  which  insures  the  widest  examination  under 
the  most  enthusiastic  advocacy  on  the  one  side  and  the  most 
strenuous  opposition  on  the  other.  It  thus  furnishes  the  occa- 
sion for  the  deepening  of  pubhc  interest  upon  public  questions. 
In  this  respect,  its  influence  is  superior.  The  freedom  with 
which  the  common  people  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  impor- 
tant questions,  and  the  marked  ability  displayed  by  some  of  the 
disputants,  show  a  valuable  element  in  American  poHtical  life. 
Whatever  might  be  the  strength  or  weakness  of  a  poHcy  foisted 
upon  the  people  by  the  party  leaders,  the  heat  of  a  campaign 
quite  generally  burns  out  the  dross  and  leaves  the  issues  clearly 
defined.  The  universal  interest  aroused  by  national  cam- 
paigns compensates  for  the  loss  of  time  and  energy,  since  it  is 
the  source  of  a  wide  intelligence  of  the  general  pubhc  upon 
important  issues.  This  general  enthusiasm  would  not  exist 
outside  of  poHtical  organization.  With  the  constant  multipli- 
cation of  local  interests  with  the  increasing  age  of  the  nation, 
individuals  will  count  for  greater  influence  and  parties  for  less. 
The  individual's  influence  will  be  exerted  most  effectively 
within  the  organization,  but  only  when  his  independence  is  of 
such  character  that  his  affiliation  with  party  is  limited  to  the 
party's  respect  for  justifiable  measures  and  honorable  candi- 
dates.    In  other  words,  party  organization  is  effective  in  the 


ORGANIZATION  IN  THE  UNITED   STATES     443 

degree  that  its  membership  displays  its  independence  of  dicta- 
torship. Likewise  a  partizan's  influence  is  effective  in  the 
degree  that  he  exercises  his  prerogative  to  think  for  himself  and 
manifests  his  attachment  to  the  principles  upon  which  his 
party  was  founded.  This  independence  of  the  citizen  voter 
and  the  numerous  leagues  in  the  interest  of  better  politics, 
together  with  a  disposition  of  party  organization  to  respect  the 
will  of  the  masses,  are  all  symptoms  of  a  healthy  state  of 
American  politics.  With  the  general  intelligence  of  the  masses 
rest  the  strength  of  American  poHtical  theory,  and  the  jus- 
tification of  party  organization  in  the  United  States. 


INDEX 


Abolitionists,  i6o;  first  convention 
of,  164;  denounced  in  Democratic 
platform,  165;  petitions  of,  222, 
223,  277  ;  as  a  political  party,  261, 
265  ;   Lincoln  denounced  by,  344 

Adams,  John,  elected  President,  10, 
125;  exponent  of  centralization, 
28 ;  account  of  a  caucus  by,  120 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  brilliant  career 
of,  139;  candidate  for  Presidency, 
140;  elected  President,  142;  in 
Congress,  163 

Alaska,  purchase  of,  418 

Alien  Law,  10,  28,  60 

American  Republican  Party,  180,  246, 
265 

Anti-Catholic  agitation,  179,  197,  244, 
247 

Anti-Federalist  Party,  11,  15 

Anti-Masonic  agitation,  145,  242  ;  end 

of.  153 

Anti-slavery  movement,  248,  276 ;  con- 
vention of,  277 

Articles  of  Confederation,  4,  421 

Bank,  national,  60,  78,  loi,  102  ; 
establishment  of  first,  103  ;  over- 
throw of,  and  attempts  to  restore, 
168;   present  system,  407 

Barnburners,  181 

Bill  of  Rights,  8,  26 

Blaine,  James  G.,  defeated  for  Presi- 
dency, 264 

Bland-Allison  Act,  408,  412 

"  Bosses,"  political,  440 

Buchanan,  James,  nominated  for 
Presidency,  199;  elected,  202,339; 
as  President,  298 

Burke,  P^dmund,  and  the  American 
colonies,  17 

Burr,  Aaron,  as  Vice  President,  t,t,, 
44;  duel  with  Hamilton,  45;  as  a 
candidate  f<jr  Vice  President,  125, 
126,  127 


Cabinet,  first  meeting,  9 
Calhoun,  early  political  views,  105 ; 
advocacy  of  state  rights,  107,  113, 
115,221;  opposition  to  tariff,  in, 
210 ;  nullification  doctrine  an- 
nounced, 112,  211 ;  elected  senator, 
119,  218;  Secretary  of  War,  141; 
candidate  for  Presidency,  141,  172  ; 
opposition  to  Jackson,  152,  153; 
withdrawal  from  Senate,  172;  re- 
turn in  1850,  188,  225;  aclvocacy 
of  slavery,  207,  223  ;  support  of  the 
administration  of  Madison,  208 ; 
opposition  to  Adams,  208;  as  Vice 
President,  210;  letter  to  Governor 
Hamilton,  217;  as  senator,  218; 
debate  with  Webster,  219,  234; 
written  works,  224;  theories  of, 
compared  with  Webster's,  240 
California,  admission  of,  186,  282 
Carpet-bag  government,  397 
Caucus,  method  of,  in  New  England, 
120;  congressional,  in  selection  of 
President,' 123,  125,  etc.  (criticism 
of,  130,  134,  142 ;  failure  of,  in 
1820,  134;  given  up,  143,  424); 
legislative,  143,  424 
Centralization   of  power,    16,   18,  22, 

72,  79 

Citizenship,  as  determined  by  the 
14th  amendment,  391 

Civil  service  reform,  415,  441 

Civil  War,  326  ;  lesson  of,  334  ;  Sum- 
ter bombarded,  342  ;  extent  of,  344 ; 
effects  of,  386,  405 ;  Constitutional 
amendments  resulting  from,  390 ; 
issues  growing  out  of,  406 

Clay,  Henry,  supporter  of  centraliza- 
tion, 107,  112;  as  a  peacemaker, 
119,186;  early  career,  135;  Speaker 
of  House  of  Representatives,  i3('); 
political  views,  136;  candidate  for 
Presidency,  135,  147,  149,  151,  153, 
159,  169,  184,  263;  triumvirate  with 


445 


446 


INDEX 


Calhoun  and  Webster,  1 56 ;  quarrel 
with  Tyler,  167  ;  withdrawal  from 
Senate,  169  ;  views  on  slavery,  174  ; 
views  on  Texas  question,  174,  177  ; 
Compromise  of  1S50,  1S6 

Cleveland,  Grover,  elected  President, 
264  ;  stand  against  free  coinage  of 
silver,  408,  412 

Clinton,  De  Witt,  candidate  for  the 
Vice  Tresidency,  127,  128;  can- 
didate    for    the    Presidency,     100, 

Compromise  of  1850,  186,  2S2,  286 
Confederate  States  of  America,  con- 
stitution of,  342 
Congressional   campaign   committee, 

131 

Conservatism  against  radicalism,  241 

Constitution,  first  amendments,  8,  10, 
26 ;    interpretation  of,  in  party  or- 
ganization, 9,   1 2  ;  loose  and  strict 
construction,  12,  15,  102,  333;  op- 
position   to    ratification,    24;     13th 
amendment,  abolishing  slavery,  331, 
368,   390;     14th    amendment,    375, 
384,   391;     15th    amendment,    395, 
396,  403 
Constitutional  Convention,  5 
Constitutional  Union  Party,  248,  305 
Continental  Congresses,  421 
Counties,  20 

Dallas,  Alexander  J.,  7 

"  Dark  Horse  "  candidate  for  Presi- 
dency, first  triumph  of,  178  ;  Pierce 
nominated  as,  192,  193 

Davis,  Jefferson,  leader  of  the  South, 
300,  301,  303  ;  elected  President  of 
the  Confederacy,  342 

Delegate  convention,  first,  for  Presi- 
dential nominations,  146,  150,  152, 

243 
Democratic  national  convention,  first, 

152;  two-thirds  rule  adopted,  153; 
second,  155;  apportionment,  155; 
third,  164;  in  1844,  175;  in  1848, 
182;  in  1852,  192;  in  1856,  198; 
in  i860,  299;  unit  rule  rejected, 
300  ;  Seceders'  convention,  303, 
305;  in  1864,  347  ;  in  1868,  387 
Democratic  Party,  sweeping  victory 
of,  in  1820,  loi  ;  platform  in  1840, 
denouncing  Abolitionists,  165;  plat- 
form in    1852,   193;    acceptance  of 


Compromise  of  1850,  195;  plat- 
form in  1856,  199;  attitude  toward 
state  rights,  204,  340 ;  divided  on 
the  slavery  issue,  205,  293,  300,  305, 
341  ;  strict  construction  favored  by, 
334,  348,  405  ;  declaration  for  bi- 
metallism. 408,  412;  position  on 
the  tariff,  412;  attitude  toward  ex- 
pansion, 41S,  419;  attitude  toward 
trusts,  420;  rule  of,  436;  debt 
owed  to,  439 

Democratic  societies,  6,  60 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  196;  exponent 
of  popular  sovereignty,  284,  294 ; 
political  views  of,  285,  292 ;  de- 
bates with  Lincoln,  290,  299,  31S, 
320;  elected  senator,  292;  loyal 
to  the  Union,  297  ;  candidate  for 
Presidential  nomination,  298,  301, 
302;  nominated,  305;  defeated,  313 

Dred  Scott  decision,  288,  392 

Electoral  college,  124,  422;  failure 
of,  to  elect  a  President,  126,  142, 
428  ;  vote  in,  compared  with  popu- 
lar vote,  263,  313,  427;  method 
followed  in  electing  a  President, 
428 

Electoral  Commission  of  1877,  432 

Emancipation,  gradual,  urged  by  Lin- 
coln, 321,  329;  demand  of  the 
North  for,  330 ;  proclamation  of, 
331,  390;  attitude  in  Virginia  to- 
ward, 389 

Embargo  Act,  14,  35 

England,  development  of  self-govern- 
ment in,  16 

I^xpansion  question,  418 

Federal  Convention,  5,  421 

Federal  regulation  of  business  in- 
terests, 420,  441 

Federalist,  the,  25,  71 

Federalist  Party,  11,  15.  4-'  4^,  50,  99, 
127,  131,  418,  436,  437,  43^ 

Fillmore,  Millard,  nominated  for 
Vice  Presidency,  184  ;  becomes 
President,  194  ;  candidate  for 
Presidential  nomination,  194;  nom- 
inated, 198,  248 

Financial  legislation,  406 

Foreign  relations,  416 

Free  Democratic  movement,  181 

Free  trade,  convention  favoring,  113 


INDEX 


447 


Free-Soil  Party,  195,  249,  261 
Freedmen's  Bureau  bill,  371 
Fremont.    John    C,    nominated    for 
President,  201,  346 

Garrison,    William    Lloyd,    157,    162, 

249,  276 
Genet,  results  of  his  visit  to  America, 

6 
Georgia,  assertion  of  state  sovereignty, 

27 
Gold  Democratic  movement,  253 
Gold  standard,  407 
Government    control    of    productive 

utilities,  420,  441 
"Grandfather  clause,"  399,  402 
Grant,  Ulysses  S.,  elected  President, 

339,  340  ;  report  to  Johnson  on  the 

South,  36S  ;  Secretary  of  AVar,  380  ; 

nominated  for  Presidency,  387 
Greece,  decentralization  in,  16 
Greenback  Party,  256,  420;    alliance 

with  Labor  Party,  257 
Greenbacks,  255,  409,  410 

Habeas  corpus,  Lincoln's  suspension 
of  writ  of,  327,  332 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  exponent  of 
centralization,  19,  22,  25,  26,  68; 
opposed  to  Alien  and  Sedition 
Laws,  30 ;  opposition  to  Burr,  44 ; 
death,  45 ;  financial  policy,  59 ; 
leadership  and  views  of,  64 ;  bril- 
liant career,  67  ;  plan  of  govern- 
ment, 70 ;  the  Federalist  articles, 
71  ;  dissatisfaction  with  the  Con- 
stitution, 72  ;  in  the  New  York 
convention,  75  ;  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  76 ;  petulance  in  defeat, 
80;  aims,  81  ;  compared  with  Jeffer- 
son, 82  ;  criticism  of  Adams's  ad- 
ministration, I  26 

Harrison,  William  Henry,  candidate 
for  Presidency,  157,  160;  pictur- 
esque campaign,  166;  death,  167 

Hartford  Convention,  48 

Hawaii,  annexation  of,  41S 

Hayes-Tildcn  election  dispute,  428 

Hayne,  Robert  Y.,  supporter  of  state 
sovereignty,  112;  debate  with  Web- 
ster, 113;  governor  of  South  Caro- 
lina, 1 19 

Henry,  Patrick,  opposition  to  ratifi- 
cation of  the  Constitution,  24,84; 


speech  against  the  Stamp  Act,  54  ; 

attitude  toward  slavery,  271 
Hooker,  Thomas,  maker  of  the  first 

written  constitution,  20 
Hunkers,  181 

Impeachment  proceedings,  383 
Independent  Party,  256 
Independent  voters,  441 
Internal  improvements,  loi,  102 

Jackson,  A ndre w,  opposition  to  the  Na- 
tional Bank,  105  ;  declaration  against 
nullification,  115,  117;  enforcement 
of  laws  in  South  Carolina,  1 18;  early 
career,  137  ;  as  a  warrior,  138  ;  can- 
didate for  Presidency,  139, 142,149; 
"spoils  system,"  150;  administra- 
tion of,  151,  203;  reelection,  153; 
second  term,  156;  opposition  to, 
157  ;  Webster's  opposition,  236 

Jacobin  clubs,  7 

Jay's  treaty,  9,  60 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  and  the  Kentucky 
Resolutions,  11,  30;  elected  Presi- 
dent, 13,  33,  125,  126;  the  Louisi- 
ana purchase,  14;  exponent  of 
decentralization,  19,  22,  26,  29,  32  ; 
policy  in  appointments  to  ofiice,  34, 
61  ;  leadership  and  views  of,  51  ; 
public  services,  54  ;  writer  of  Dec- 
laration of  Independence,  55  ;  work 
for  religious  freedom,  56;  attitude 
toward  slavery,  57,  270,  276 ;  atti- 
tude toward  the  Constitution,  59; 
strained  relations  with  Washing- 
ton, 59  ;  inconsistency  between  his 
views  and  his  administrative  acts, 
61  ;  founder  of  State  University  of 
Virginia,  62  ;  opposition  to  a  na- 
tional bank,  78  ;  compared  with 
Hamilton,  82 

Johnson,  Andrew,  nominated  for 
Vice  Presidency,  346 ;  loyalty  to 
the  Union,  347,  361  ;  becomes 
President,  361  ;  efforts  toward  Re- 
construction, 362 ;  opposed  by  Con- 
gress, 365 ;  first  annual  message, 
366  ;  vetoes,  37 1 ,  374,  377,  378,  382, 
384,  385;  proclamation  ending  the 
war,  372;  attack  on  Stevens,  374; 
appeal  to  the  people,  375  ;  growing 
opposition  to,  376 ;  third  annual 
message, 379;  quarrel  witli  Sianlon, 


448 


INDEX 


3S0 ;  impeachment  trial,  3S0,  2^2; 
proclamation  of  pardon,  384  ;  views 
for  and  against,  in  quarrel  with 
Congress,  385 

Kansas-Nebraska  agitation,  196,  2S2, 

286 
Kentucky  Resolutions,  11,  30,  104 
Know-Nothing  Party,  197,  247,  305 
Kuklux  Klan,  397 

Labor  and  capital,  419 

Labor  Party,  243,  257 

Liberal  Republican  movement,  253 

Liberty  Party,  166,  180,  248 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  votes  for  and 
against,  205,  206,  339,  347  ;  democ- 
racy of,  206 ;  elected  President, 
283,  313,  341  ;  views  on  Dred  Scott 
decision,  290,  323 ;  debates  with 
Douglas,  290,  299,  318,  320;  de- 
feated for  the  Senate,  292  ;  Repub- 
lican leader,  307,  310,  325;  nomi- 
nated for  Presidency,  312;  early 
career,  314;  democracy  of,  316, 
324;  attitude  toward  slavery,  316, 
318;  in  Congress,  317;  candidate 
for  the  Senate,  319;  views  on  the 
Union,  326,  330  ;  argument  against 
secession,  328 ;  gradual  emanci- 
pation urged,  329;  emancipation 
proclaimed,  331  ;  executive  prerog- 
atives extended,  332 ;  fitness  for 
Presidency,  335  ;  opposed  by  Abo- 
litionists, 344;  renomination,  346; 
reelected,  347 ;  views  on  Recon- 
struction, 348,  356;  proclamation 
of  pardon,  350  ;  disagreement  with 
Senate  on  Reconstruction,  352 ; 
denounced  in  the  Wade- Davis 
manifesto,  354;  last  speech,  358; 
death,  359 
Locofocos,  244 

Louisiana,  Reconstruction  in,  351,  355 
Louisiana  purchase,  14,  418 

McKinley,  William,  elected  President, 
409 

Madison,  James,  and  the  Virginia 
Resolutions,  11,  31;  exponent  of 
centralization,  25,  84;  in  the  War 
of  1812,40,  130;  elected  President, 
100,  128,  132 

Maine,  prohibition  in,  250 


Marshall,  John,  and  state  sovereignty, 
27,  38  ;  views  on  implied  powers  in 
the  Constitution,  72;  judicial  mind 
of,  83 ;  public  services,  84 ;  expo- 
nent of  centralization,  85,  96;  ad- 
vocate of  a  strong  judiciary,  86 ; 
Chief  Justice,  87  ;  opinions  of  con- 
temporaries on  his  work,  96 ;  place 
in  history,  97 

Massachusetts  and  the  Embargo  Act, 

36,47 
Missouri  Compromise,  277;  repealed, 

196,  282,  286,  298 

Money,  theories  of,  in  politics,  254; 
specie  payments,  256,  410;  phases 
of  discussions  on,  406;  electorate 
not  controlled  by,  441 

Monroe,  James,  elected  President, 
101  ;  first  candidacy  for  Presidency, 
129  ;  Secretary  of  State,  130  ;  nomi- 
nated for  Presidency,  133,  242 

Monroe  Doctrine,  417 

Municipal  ownership  of  public  utili- 
ties, 441 

Native  Republican  Party,  180 

Nativist  movement,  179 

Negroes,  free,  388,  389;  right  of 
suffrage,  394,  397 

New  England,  in  the  controversy  over 
state  rights,  13,  36,  42,  46;  early 
governments  in,  19;  measures  for 
defense  in  the  War  of  1812,  47; 
nominations  by  caucus  in,  121 

New  Hampshire,  assertion  of  state 
sovereignty,  28 

Newspapers,  earliest,  122 

Nomination  processes,  120 

Nullification,  in  the  Kentucky  Reso- 
lutions, 30 ;  formal  pronouncement 
of  doctrine  of,  1 12,  114,  21 1  ;  Ordi- 
nance of,  116;  opposition  to,  118, 
218 

Parties,  political,  in  the  United  States 
as  contrasted  with  Europe,  i  ;  ear- 
liest organizations,  7  ;  in  the  con- 
troversy over  state  rights,  12,  19, 
27;  development  in  Jefferson's  ad- 
ministration, 34,  60  ;  new  alignment 
after  overthrow  of  the  Federalists, 
103 ;  election  machinery  devel- 
oped, 122,  133;  change  of  front 
in   Jackson's    administration,  203 ; 


INDEX 


449 


conservative  and  radical,  241 ;  third, 
242,260,262,265;  numerical  equality 
of  the  two  leading,  262,  43S ;  in- 
fluence of  slavery  on,  341 ;  prin- 
ciples of  division  of,  436;  control 
of  government  by,  436 ;  criticism 
of,  439  ;   necessity  of,  442 

Pennsylvania,  assertion  of  state  sover- 
eignty, 38 ;  in  the  Bank  controversy, 
103 ;  early  nomination  processes, 
121 

People's  Party,  259,  420 

Phillips,  Wendell,  disunion  demanded 
by,  187  ;  candidate  for  governor  of 
Massachusetts,  257 

Pierce,  Franklin,  nominated  for  Pres- 
idency, 193;  elected,  196;  ad- 
ministration of,  196;  candidate  for 
renomination,  199 

Platform,  party,  earliest  form  of,  in 
an  address  to  the  people,  148,  150, 
153;  first  regular,  151 

Polk,  James  K.,  nominated  for  Presi- 
dency, 175;  elected,  178 

Popular  sovereignty,  doctrine  of,  284, 
294  ;  in  the  Democratic  convention 
of  i860,  301 

Populism,  259 

President,  nomination  of  (by  con- 
gressional caucus,  123,  125,  etc.; 
by  nominating  convention,  132  ;  by 
legislative  resolution  or  caucus,  143  ; 
by  legislative  convention,  143;  by 
state  convention,  144  ;  by  delegate 
convention,  146) ;  methods  of  elect- 
ing, proposed  in  the  Federal  con- 
vention, 422  ;  methods  of  selecting 
electors  of  the,  423 ;  method  of 
electing,  428  ;  failure  to  elect,  428 

Presidential  succession,  166,  428 

Prohibition  Party,  249,  264,  265 

Quids,  242 

Radicalism  against  conservatism,  241 
Randolph, John, of  Roanoke, 9;  leader 
of  the  House,  35;  opposition  to 
Madison,  100;  opposition  to  tariff, 
III  ;  opposition  to  caucus  method, 
128,  129;  leader  of  the  Quids,  242 
Reconstruction,  problem  of,  348 ; 
Lincoln's  steps  toward,  349  ;  views 
of  the  Senate  on,  351  ;  ("ongres- 
sional     plan    for,    353;     Lincoln's 


position  on,  strengthened,  355; 
Johnson's  steps  toward,  362  ;  Con- 
gressional Committee  on,  367  ;  rad- 
ical plan  for  military  control  of,  377 
(plan  adopted,  378) ;  opposite  views 
of,  3S5 

Representatives,  House  of,  in  election 
of  President,  126,  142;  from  slave 
and  free  states,  280 ;  in  impeach- 
ment trials,  382  ;  apportionment  in, 
392 

Republican  national  convention,  first, 
201;  in  1S60,  306;  majority  rule 
adopted,  308;  in  1864,  346  ;  in  1868, 

387 
Republican  Party,  victory  of,  over  the 
Federalists,  122,125;  new  form  of, 
arising  out  of  slavery  discussions, 
200,  341 ;  first  platform,  denouncing 
slavery,  201  ;  strong  showing  of,  in 
its  first  campaign,  202,  249;  rule  of, 
since  i860,  249,  437  ;  never  a  third 
party,  261 ;  position  of,  in  i860,  308; 
broad  construction  adopted,  334, 
347,  405 ;  sectional  character  of, 
338;  control  of,  in  South,  39S;  posi- 
tion on  the  money  question,  408 ; 
position  on  the  tariff,  412  ;  attitude 
toward  expansion,  418;  attitude 
toward  trusts,  420 ;  debt  owed  to, 

43S 
Revolution,  effects  of  the,  18 
Rhode  Island,  tardy  ratification  of  the 

Constitution,  24 
Rome,  centralization  in,  16 

San  Domingo,  question  of  annexing, 
4.8 

Scott,  Winfield,  194;  nominated  for 
Presidency,  195;  defeated,  247 

Secession,  right  of,  first  declared,  115; 
reaffirmed,  117;  accomplished,  283, 
342  ;  convention  favoring,  303,  305  ; 
Lincoln's  views  on,  326,  348,  356 

Sedition  Law,  10,  29,  60 

Senate,  in  election  of  Vice  President, 
159;  equilibrium  of,  related  to 
slavery,  186,  279;  views  on  Re- 
construction, 351  ;  in  ini])eachmcnt 
trials,  383 

Seward,  William  H.,  speech  on  the 
Compromise  of  1850,  191  ;  attitude 
toward  the  (,'athf)lics,  245;  Kc|5ub- 
lican    leader,    306;    candidate    for 


450 


INDEX 


Presidential   nomination,    310;    in- 
fluence of,  in  Reconstruction,  362, 
366;  purchase  of  Alaska,  418 
Silver,  in  the  campaign  of  1896,  340, 
408 ;  coinage  of,  408  ;  the  "  crime 

of  1873,"  412 

Slavery,  beginning  of  agitation 
against,  157,  162;  friends  of,  in 
control  of  Democratic  national 
convention,  176,  182,  193,  300; 
Whig  attitude  in  184S  toward,  1S5; 
relation  of,  to  equilibrium  of  the 
Senate,  186,  279;  a  sectional  issue, 
200,  205,  278,  298,  338 ;  prepon- 
derant influence  of,  223  ;  introduc- 
tion into  America,  269 ;  action  of 
the  states  toward,  271  ;  com- 
promises on,  in  P'ederal  conven- 
tion, 271  ;  forbidden  in  Northwest 
Territory,  272,  273;  greatest  in- 
creases in,  273  ;  promoted  by  cot- 
ton culture,  274 ;  civilization  of 
South  influenced  by,  275,  278; 
opposition  to,  275-;  colonization 
proposed,  276;  boundary  line  be- 
tween free  and  slave  states,  278 ; 
Supreme  Court  on,  288  ;  Republi- 
can attitude  towards,  309  ;  abolition 
of,  331,  390;  influence  of,  on  par- 
ties, 341 

Slaves,  number  of,  270,  272,  388; 
prices,  274  ;  insurrections,  388 

Socialism,  258,  259 

Socialist  Labor  Party,  259 

South,  early  government  in,  20  ;  state 
sovereignty  advocated,  13,  19,  22, 
32  ;  tariff  opposed  by,  112;  attitude 
toward  slavery,  270 ;  the  "  solid 
South,"  313,  338,  340,  387,  403;  at 
close  of  the  Civil  War,  373  ;  oppo- 
sition of,  to  the  Constitutional 
amendments,  397  ;  effects  of  the 
1 5th  amendment,  403 

South  Carolina,  in  the  Bank  contro- 
versy, 104;  explanation  of  political 
views  in,  108;  in  the  controversies 
over  a  tariff  and  internal  improve- 
ments, no,  116;  state  sovereignty 
in,  113;  doctrine  of  secession  an- 
nounced, 115,  117;  Ordinance  of 
Nullification,  116;  secession  of,  283 

Spanish-American  War,  sectional 
feeling  softened  by,  313;  expan- 
sion problems  arising  from,  419 


State  sovereignty,  in  the  Articles  of 
Confederation,  4  ;  in  the  Constitu- 
tional Convention,  6,  18,  24;  de- 
fined by  Virginia  and  Rentucky 
Resolutions,  11,  30;  advocated  in 
South,  13,  19,  22,  32;  in  Ceorgia, 
27  ;  in  New  Hampshire,  28 ;  in 
Pennsylvania,  38  ;  in  New  England, 
36,  42 ;  in  the  Bank  discussions, 
102,  105;  attitude  of  Democratic 
Party  on,  204,  340;  Calhoun's  views 
on,  211  ;  Webster's  views  on,  232; 
Lincoln's  views  on,  327 

Suffrage,  right  of,  393,  397  ;  limited, 

398 
Supreme  Court,  and  Georgia,  27  ; 
New  Hampshire  case,  28  ;  Peters 
case,  38,  90 ;  influential  position 
gained  under  Marshall,  88,  103; 
Dred  Scott  decision,  288  ;  decisions 
affecting  rights  of  Negroes,  399 

Tariff,  loi  ;  bill  of  1S28,  in  ;  revision 
of  1832,  115;  favored  by  Whigs, 
151,  170;  compromise  toward  rev- 
enue basis,  221  ;  as  an  issue,  412; 
bill  of  1857,  for  revenue  only,  413 

Taylor,  Zachary,  nominated  for  Pres- 
idency,   180,     184,    246;     elected, 

185 

Temperance  agitation,  250 

Texas,  question  of  annexation,  174, 
280,  418 

Tories,  in  the  Revolution,  3 

Townships,  20 

Trusts,  419 

Tyler,  John,  nominated  for  Vice 
Presidency,  161  ;  elected,  166;  be- 
comes President,  167  ;  break  with 
Whigs,  168  ;   political  downfall,  177 

Unit  rule,  300 

United  Labor  Party,  258 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  supported  by 
Jackson  for  Presidency,  153  ;  nom- 
inated, 155;  elected,  158;  candi- 
date for  reelection,  165,  175,  181  ; 
as  a  politician,  173;  opposition  to 
annexation  of  Texas,  174 

Virginia,assertion  of  state  sovereignty, 
III;  opposition  to  nullification,  119; 
mother  of  Presidents,  139 

Virginia  Resolutions,  11,  31,  104 


INDEX 


451 


War  of  1S12,  40  ;  action  of  New  Eng- 
land, 47  ;  declaration  of,  forced 
upon   ^ladison,  131 

Washington,  George,  unanimously 
elected  President,  6,  23  ;  subjected 
to  bitter  abuse,  g  ;  influence  in  the 
controversy  over  centralization  and 
state  rights,  22,  25;  policy  in  ap- 
pointments to  office,  33  ;  vote  cast 
in  second  election  of,  as  President, 
124;  attitude  toward  slavery,  271; 
military  dictatorship  of,  421 

Webster,  Daniel,  opposition  to  a  pro- 
tective tariff,  106,  226;  debate  with 
Ilayne,  113,  231  ;  triumvirate  with 
Clay  and  Calhoun,  i  56  ;  candidate 
for  Presidency,  15S,  184,  194;  in 
Tyler's  Cabinet,  168,  169;  Seventh 
of  March  speech,  190,  194,  238  ;  de- 
bate with  Calhoun,  219,  234;  parti- 
sanship, 226 ;  support  of  tariff,  227  ; 
earlv  influences,  228  ;  a  broad  con- 


structionist, 229;  Dartmouth  Col- 
lege case,  229;  "Defender  of  the 
Constitution,"  234  ;  opposition  to 
Jackson,  236 ;  views  on  slavery,  237  ; 
theories  of,  compared  with  Cal- 
houn's, 240 ;  efforts  against  the 
spoils  system,  416 

Whigs,  in  the  Revolution,  3  ;  first  na- 
tional convention  of,  i  50  ;  opposi- 
tion to  Jackson,  1 57  ;  convention  of 
1840,160;  convention  of  1844,  170; 
convention  of  1848,  183;  disinte- 
gration of,  186,  196,  247,  248  ;  con- 
vention of  1S52,  193;  acquiescence 
in  Compromise  of  1850,  195;  last 
convention,  202 ;  not  a  sectional 
party,  337  ;  opposition  to  expan- 
sion, 418  ;  rule  of,  437  ;  debt  owed 
to,  438 

Wilmot  Proviso,  282 

Woman's  Rights  movement,  260 

Wythe,  George,  135 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITV 


AA    000  695  417    6 


I 


